Organic Food

spupazza

Hi all,

I hope this is the right section to open this thread.
I would like to know if in Dublin (in particular City Centre, North Co. Dublin, because I live in Swords) there are places or web sites that sell organic food from the producer (farmer) to the consumer. In other words, I, consumer, can buy organic food directly from the producer, and not from the big distribution. This can be called even food at 0 km, because it doesn't need to be transported from other countries in Ireland, but from the closest producer in Ireland to you.

I'm interested to change my diet for my health, the health of the other people and the environment, which gains by the not use of drugs to cultivate the food and consequently less gas carbon in the air emitted by the plough land and the aircraft used to transport from nation to nation food.
Any help is appreciated.:)

spupazza

Hi guys, looking ery well on internet, I've found ot that there ia a farmer market in Swords, where I live! It's fantastic! It is in North Street only on Saturday from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. for who is interested. They sell local vegetables, fruit, braed and sweets and cakes, meats, eggs, etc...:D
Thanks anyway!

Húrin

There's also a centre for this sort of thing in Laytown called Sonairte. Though the more local the better I suppose. Happy shopping.

paddym355

we used to order from these guys when we lived on the northside, they would stash a veggie box under a hedge and collect money in an envelope we had hidden away, very handy and very tasty.
Enjoy!

http://www.absolutelyorganic.ie/howitworks/box-system.asp

Macha

Hi there,

We (boyf and I) used to order from Absolutely Organic but we found the service to be awful.
-we got carrots every single week, even during the summer
-we also seemed to get cabbage all the time
-once they sent us 5 bulbs of garlic (how were we going to use all that up in 1 week??)
-fruit was always apples, oranges, bananas - no berries in summer
-no real seasonal changes
-a lot of stuff from abroad, especially Holland

The final straw was when we got some kiwi fruits from NZ-I asked for my credit back. They rang and tried to explain how they were supporting Irish organic farmers (??) but I just got my money back.

Now we have a weekly order with www.homeorganics.ie. Brilliant services, changes with the seasons, highly recommended. Eg, we get 1 bulb of garlic and a few red & white onions every week

paddym355

have tried these guys for a month now, they are much better, and tastier - thanks a million for the heads up!!

ChocolateSauce

What a load of crap, there's no convincing evidence to suggest organic food is any healthier (or unhealthier) than normal or GM food.

If you want to do it for anti-capitalist reasons, that's up to you, but don't be fooled into think it's healthy.

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

What a load of crap, there's no convincing evidence to suggest organic food is any healthier (or unhealthier) than normal or GM food.

If you want to do it for anti-capitalist reasons, that's up to you, but don't be fooled into think it's healthy.

Organic is about production method, not end-product qualities. There are many other reasons to buy organic, including a healthy environment, other than your bizarre "anti-capitalist" reason - whatever that means.

However, there are studies that show a build-up in pesticides in the skin of many foods as a result of non-organic farming methods. And there was a very large survey carried out in 2007 in the EU that showed higher levels of anti-oxidants in organic food, than non-organic food.

paddym355

I don't think buying something can be considered 'anti-capitalist', maybe anti-supermarket:)

Also, as my post said they are generally tastier, although this could be as much to do with how veggies are stored in a supermarket and the negative effects of that as to the fact that the ones I get are organic.

Also, thy have been proved to be better in some areas (nutrients, antioxidents)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/29/organics.sciencenews

ChocolateSauce

taconnol wrote: »

Organic is about production method, not end-product qualities. There are many other reasons to buy organic, including a healthy environment, other than your bizarre "anti-capitalist" reason - whatever that means.

However, there are studies that show a build-up in pesticides in the skin of many foods as a result of non-organic farming methods. And there was a very large survey carried out in 2007 in the EU that showed higher levels of anti-oxidants in organic food, than non-organic food.

I didn't mention production methods for just that reason. Higher than normal amounts of anti-oxidants seem to be of questionable benefit. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it certainly shouldn't be a deciding factor.

Double-blind studies have proven that organic food does not taste better than normal food when they're prepared and stored the same. I can certainly see why ultra-fresh food might taste batter. And PaddyM, one link to an un-sourced article which only references a single study is as far from "proof" as anything which comes to mind. I've seen a number of studies which show organic food is better than normal food, but I've seen just as many studies which show it is not, and even one or two which show it is worse. The jury is still out on that one, but I'd throw my lot in with the "no better no worse" camp.

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I didn't mention production methods for just that reason. Higher than normal amounts of anti-oxidants seem to be of questionable benefit. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it certainly shouldn't be a deciding factor.

Well, I guess that's up to the individual. I agree with you insofar as for me, I don't buy organic for my own health.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Double-blind studies have proven that organic food does not taste better than normal food when they're prepared and stored the same. I can certainly see why ultra-fresh food might taste batter. And PaddyM, one link to an un-sourced article which only references a single study is as far from "proof" as anything which comes to mind. I've seen a number of studies which show organic food is better than normal food, but I've seen just as many studies which show it is not, and even one or two which show it is worse. The jury is still out on that one, but I'd throw my lot in with the "no better no worse" camp.

Again, the main benefit of buying organic, in my opinion, is for the environment. There are many other factors to consider. Sustainable food production a complicated issue.

paddym355

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I didn't mention production methods for just that reason. Higher than normal amounts of anti-oxidants seem to be of questionable benefit. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it certainly shouldn't be a deciding factor.

Double-blind studies have proven that organic food does not taste better than normal food when they're prepared and stored the same. I can certainly see why ultra-fresh food might taste batter. And PaddyM, one link to an un-sourced article which only references a single study is as far from "proof" as anything which comes to mind. I've seen a number of studies which show organic food is better than normal food, but I've seen just as many studies which show it is not, and even one or two which show it is worse. The jury is still out on that one, but I'd throw my lot in with the "no better no worse" camp.

It's still one more link and study than your sum total:rolleyes:
And in fairness I did point out that the reason it tastes better probably has as much if not more to do with how it is stored; however, it does taste better and to be honest that's really all I care about.

Judgement Day

This is something I feel very strongly about but as it is such a wide ranging topic I will restrict myself to the humble spud. For a number of years now I have eaten only organic potatoes, occasionally when desperate resorting to Wilson's Country potatoes grown without chemical fertilisers, as well as ones I have grown myself. Anyway having an interest in growing veg and farming matters I often listen to Farm Week on RTE radio - a while back a potato grower was being interviewed and he stated that he had sprayed his crop an incredible 15 (!) times against blight during the growing season. Can this be good for the soil, the beasties that live it or the end user? It is certainly good for the multi-national companies that produce the blight sprays! Commercial growers use a spray of Sulphuric acid or paraquat - yummy.

On the matter of taste, I challenge anyone to tell me that freshly dug organic spuds from the garden taste the same as something that has been lying around for weeks after harvesting and been treated with a cocktail of blight sprays and fertilised by artificial means. Wake up and smell the organic coffee!

ChocolateSauce

Judgement Day wrote: »

This is something I feel very strongly about but as it is such a wide ranging topic I will restrict myself to the humble spud. For a number of years now I have eaten only organic potatoes, occasionally when desperate resorting to Wilson's Country potatoes grown without chemical fertilisers, as well as ones I have grown myself. Anyway having an interest in growing veg and farming matters I often listen to Farm Week on RTE radio - a while back a potato grower was being interviewed and he stated that he had sprayed his crop an incredible 15 (!) times against blight during the growing season. Can this be good for the soil, the beasties that live it or the end user? It is certainly good for the multi-national companies that produce the blight sprays! Commercial growers use a spray of Sulphuric acid or paraquat - yummy.

There have been many studies on this one. Generally, the chemicals are not harmful to humans enough to get them banned by the overly-cautious EU. I remember one study in Denmark which showed that people who weren't exposed to a certain chemical actually had a greater risk of cancer (of course, one study is fairly meaningless!)! All this spraying does seem to be bad for the soil, and can cause many problems, especially near rivers.

On the matter of taste, I challenge anyone to tell me that freshly dug organic spuds from the garden taste the same as something that has been lying around for weeks after harvesting and been treated with a cocktail of blight sprays and fertilised by artificial means. Wake up and smell the organic coffee!

Of course freshly dug organic spuds tastes better than something which has been lying around for weeks! But it has been proven conclusively (and I rarely put my foot down on matters of science) they don't taste better than a freshly dug spud which has been conventionally grown.

I personally think the best way to reduce our use of chemicals which are harmful to the environment and not exactly healthy for us is to genetically modify plants to be resistant to the pests we kill.

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

There have been many studies on this one. Generally, the chemicals are not harmful to humans enough to get them banned by the overly-cautious EU. I remember one study in Denmark which showed that people who weren't exposed to a certain chemical actually had a greater risk of cancer (of course, one study is fairly meaningless!)! All this spraying does seem to be bad for the soil, and can cause many problems, especially near rivers.

It isn't just bad for the soil, it's bad for the people who live in the countryside and biodiversity in general. Bee populations are rapidly shrinking as we fail to realise how much we depend on natural processes.

Just because the government or EU hasn't banned them yet, doesn't mean they shouldn't be banned. In fact, governments can be complicit in holding up proceedings as seen recently in the UK:

An environmental campaigner today won a landmark victory against the government in a long-running legal battle over the use of pesticides.

The high court ruled that Georgina Downs, who runs the UK Pesticides Campaign, had produced "solid evidence" that people exposed to chemicals used to spray crops had suffered harm.

The court said the government had failed to comply with a European directive designed to protect rural communities from exposure to the toxins. It said the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) must reassess its policy, and investigate the risks to people exposed. Defra had argued that its approach to the regulation and control of pesticides was "reasonable, logical and lawful".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/14/pollution-health

Reports by government agencies show elevated levels of pesticides in our food and proof of "abuse". It just doesn't make the news because it isn't exciting enough (conclusion starts on pg 33) :

http://agriculture.gov.ie/publicat/pesticides/PESTICID.PDF .This same report makes it clear that the safe levels of pesticides are constantly under review as new research is carried out. Eg:

The need to urgently review the demeton group of pesticides has been recognised at both EU and CODEX levels. Oxydemeton-methyl is soon to be reviewed in the EU in accordance with the requirements of directive 91/414/EEC.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I personally think the best way to reduce our use of chemicals which are harmful to the environment and not exactly healthy for us is to genetically modify plants to be resistant to the pests we kill.

GM may have it's place but reliance on a silver bullet to solve our problems is very short-sighted. It's also a cop-out so that we don't have to change the way we do things. Moreover, most GM crops still need the use of pesticides so they often do little to solve the problem of pesticides.

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

...a while back a potato grower was being interviewed and he stated that he had sprayed his crop an incredible 15 (!) times against blight during the growing season. Can this be good for the soil, the beasties that live it or the end user? It is certainly good for the multi-national companies that produce the blight sprays!

It's also good for the spuds, or would you prefer a blight-riddled crop?

Judgement Day

djpbarry wrote: »

It's also good for the spuds, or would you prefer a blight-riddled crop?

Good for the spuds - in that it stops them being destroyed by blight - but is it good for the soil or the end user? There are more blight resistant varieties of potatoes coming on the market all the time and it is really about time more money was put into pursuing this approach instead of dosing everything with chemicals.

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

Good for the spuds - in that it stops them being destroyed by blight - but is it good for the soil or the end user?

The point is that these fungicides are not being added for the hell of it – there are very good reasons why food is not mass-produced organically.

Judgement Day wrote: »

There are more blight resistant varieties of potatoes coming on the market all the time and it is really about time more money was put into pursuing this approach instead of dosing everything with chemicals.

Hmm. Good luck pushing that agenda. In my experience, most people who fall into the pro-organic camp are also in the anti-GM camp, our own Green Party being a case in point.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

The point is that these fungicides are not being added for the hell of it – there are very good reasons why food is not mass-produced organically.

It isn't a case of A or B, organic or mass-produced food, sodden with fertilizers.

djpbarry wrote: »

Hmm. Good luck pushing that agenda. In my experience, most people who fall into the pro-organic camp are also in the anti-GM camp, our own Green Party being a case in point.

It's important to point out that there are two distinct issues within the GM discussion:
1) the science
2) the control of the science
I can't argue with scientific results that prove a real benefit (not just an increased capacity to extract resources) but I have serious issues with who controls and benefits from GM.

Judgement Day

djpbarry wrote: »

The point is that these fungicides are not being added for the hell of it – there are very good reasons why food is not mass-produced organically.
Hmm. Good luck pushing that agenda. In my experience, most people who fall into the pro-organic camp are also in the anti-GM camp, our own Green Party being a case in point.

Yes - I'm quite happy to be lumped in with the anti-GM lobby.

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

There are more blight resistant varieties of potatoes coming on the market all the time...

Judgement Day wrote: »

Yes - I'm quite happy to be lumped in with the anti-GM lobby.

Judgement Day

djpbarry wrote: »

The recent development of Sarpo Hungarian varieties of potato are extremely blight resistant and these are coming onto the market now. Sarpo Mira was the first to be generally available but this is not an all round potato. I’ve tried the Sarpo Axona variety and found it not as blight resistant as the Mira and little different in taste or type. Still looking for a Sarpo that will make a good chip.
There are other varieties of potato with varying degrees of blight resistance listed below. The Sarpo types are exclusive to Thompson & Morgan.

These are NOT GM products they have been produced by selective breeding!:)

20goto10

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

What a load of crap, there's no convincing evidence to suggest organic food is any healthier (or unhealthier) than normal or GM food.

If you want to do it for anti-capitalist reasons, that's up to you, but don't be fooled into think it's healthy.

Pesticides are causing large scale infertility problems - fact and scientifically proven. Its good enough reason for me. Pesticides keep the bugs away and the bugs know a hell of a lot more than we do. The argument that whats bad for bugs is ok for humans is wrong. We are getting vast amounts of pesticides. There is a limit to the amount your food can contain but that limit does not add all your food together and take the overall limit. Its in absolutely everything....and its poison ofr gods sake!!

ChocolateSauce

taconnol wrote: »

It isn't just bad for the soil, it's bad for the people who live in the countryside and biodiversity in general. Bee populations are rapidly shrinking as we fail to realise how much we depend on natural processes.

Just because the government or EU hasn't banned them yet, doesn't mean they shouldn't be banned. In fact, governments can be complicit in holding up proceedings as seen recently in the UK:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/14/pollution-health

Reports by government agencies show elevated levels of pesticides in our food and proof of "abuse". It just doesn't make the news because it isn't exciting enough (conclusion starts on pg 33) :

http://agriculture.gov.ie/publicat/pesticides/PESTICID.PDF .This same report makes it clear that the safe levels of pesticides are constantly under review as new research is carried out. Eg:

A number of good points, and certain worth noting. One thing though, so-called biodiversity doesn't exist in places where we farm (of course, I admit what is diverse and what is plain is open to debate...but I don't see a huge amount of variety in nature when I walk through the countryside). There are biodiverse areas all over the place, and they need protection, but they don't exist near farmland. We destroyed that long ago, and tbh I don't think the plight of the badger or brown rat is worth tiptoeing around a major agri-industrial issue.

GM may have it's place but reliance on a silver bullet to solve our problems is very short-sighted. It's also a cop-out so that we don't have to change the way we do things. Moreover, most GM crops still need the use of pesticides so they often do little to solve the problem of pesticides.

GM is itself a change, and would directly result in a major decrease in our use of chemicals...that seems to me a change in the way we do things. I'm not saying they'll be chemical-free, but we could do fewer sprayings, and maybe even grow them organically. Considering the technology is in its early youth, the possibilities are huge, so I wouldn't starting looking at the possible limits just yet.

Judgement day wrote:

There are more blight resistant varieties of potatoes coming on the market all the time...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judgement Day
Yes - I'm quite happy to be lumped in with the anti-GM lobby.

Indeed, it doesn't matter if it is done randomly in a totally uncontrolled manner, like selective breading, or done with extreme precision in a lab, that's GM. If you modify the food, you are modifying its genome, call it what you like. This is a pretty good example of how certain people don't know what "GM" actually is.

fact and scientifically proven

This proves you don't know anything about science. No good scientist would say this.

Pesticides keep the bugs away and the bugs know a hell of a lot more than we do.

They keep the bugs away because they kill them. Bugs know more than we do? Really? I never knew.....I guess there's probably a chat room out there somewhere where some bugs are typing away on their advanced computers, with their written language, having a debate, "do those big mammals really have brains?"

its poison ofr gods sake!

One mans trash is another man's treasure. There are many, many things which are lethal to one species and harmless, or even beneficial to another. Did you know dark chocolate is toxic to dogs? If there is something is chocolate which is toxic to dogs (a fellow mammal) and harmless to us, why can there not be analogues with insects, or plants and fungus, two totally different kingdoms?

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

A number of good points, and certain worth noting. One thing though, so-called biodiversity doesn't exist in places where we farm (of course, I admit what is diverse and what is plain is open to debate...but I don't see a huge amount of variety in nature when I walk through the countryside). There are biodiverse areas all over the place, and they need protection, but they don't exist near farmland. We destroyed that long ago, and tbh I don't think the plight of the badger or brown rat is worth tiptoeing around a major agri-industrial issue.

You may take offense at this but it is breathtakingly arrogant to assume that the only worthy biodiversity is what you can perceive with your naked eye.

There are areas that are particularly important because they act as habitats to important species (ie SPAs & SACs), many of which are endangered or are important on a national or EU level but animals and plants exist everywhere and need to be encouraged everywhere. For example, the hedges that line our fields are called linear forests and are all that remain of our ancient forests - it is incredibly important to look after these and ensure that they're not cut down simply to create bigger fields for farmers.

Then there's the issue of soil quality, the functioning of worms and other invertebrates, bacteria & fungi on which our own lives are directly dependent. The value of the work done by biodiversity has recently been estimated at €2.6bn per year in Ireland alone, with the earthworm worth €700m per year alone. To get an idea of just how important these little guys are, I suggest you watch this video:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/e_o_wilson_on_saving_life_on_earth.html

The EPA clearly identify "intensive agricultural practices" as one of the main threats to biodiversity in Ireland.

Your assertion that a simple rat or badger is not worth tip-toeing around an agricultural issue is just shocking. It shows an incredible ignorance of ecology. The assumption that we have it all figured and and know exactly what we're doing has been the attitude that usually precedes the larger ecological disasters such as rabbits & myxomatosis, the reintroduction and subsequent slaughter of wolves in a forest in Bavaria, the Aral Sea...I could go on. I really find this anthropocentric "things only have value because they're of use to me" attitude quite depressing.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

GM is itself a change, and would directly result in a major decrease in our use of chemicals...that seems to me a change in the way we do things. I'm not saying they'll be chemical-free, but we could do fewer sprayings, and maybe even grow them organically. Considering the technology is in its early youth, the possibilities are huge, so I wouldn't starting looking at the possible limits just yet.

Unfortunately, there is no proof that GM reduces the use of pesticides - rather it has only resulted in an increase in pesticide use and yet again, we underestimate nature's ability to adapt to what we throw at it:

One of the major arguments in favour of growing GM crops has been undermined by a study showing that the benefits are short-lived because farmers quickly resort to spraying their fields with harmful pesticides.

Supporters of genetically modified crops claim the technique saves money and provides environmental benefits because farmers need to spray their fields fewer times with chemicals.

However, a detailed survey of 481 cotton growers in China found that, although they did use fewer pesticides in the first few years of adopting GM plants, after seven years they had to use just as much pesticide as they did with conventional crops.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/farmers-use-as-much-pesticide-with-gm-crops-us-study-finds-409414.html

Increasing pesticide use is changing the profile of insect and other pests that Australian farmers must contend with, and GM crops are set to bring their own changes, say experts.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/11/18/2420246.htm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This proves you don't know anything about science. No good scientist would say this.

After what you've written here, I'd be more careful about throwing around hypocritical insults like this..

20goto10

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This proves you don't know anything about science. No good scientist would say this.

No it doesn't. there's no proof in science? Thats nonsense. We're not talking about a far out theory here.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

They keep the bugs away because they kill them. Bugs know more than we do? Really?

You're playing with words now. Bugs know to stay away. Put an apple out and watch what happens when the bugs go near it. They know more about it than we do in the respect that a bug will stay away from poison whereas a human will gladly eat the pretty red berry without a second thought. everyday we tuck into food that has been sprayed with poison...now thats smart!!

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

One mans trash is another man's treasure. There are many, many things which are lethal to one species and harmless, or even beneficial to another. Did you know dark chocolate is toxic to dogs? If there is something is chocolate which is toxic to dogs (a fellow mammal) and harmless to us, why can there not be analogues with insects, or plants and fungus, two totally different kingdoms?

Because pesticides are harmful to humans. They cause infertility and pesticide poisoning. Poisoning being the operative word here.

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

These are NOT GM products they have been produced by selective breeding!:)

As ChocolateSauce has already pointed out, selective breeding is just another means of modifying the genome.

20goto10 wrote: »

There is a limit to the amount your food can contain but that limit does not add all your food together and take the overall limit. Its in absolutely everything....and its poison ofr gods sake!!

Toxicity depends on dosage. For example, water is essential for life, but a large enough quantity in your system will kill you.

20goto10 wrote: »

there's no proof in science? Thats nonsense.

No it is not; there’s no such thing as an exact science. Science produces evidence, not proof.

ChocolateSauce

taconnol wrote: »

There are areas that are particularly important because they act as habitats to important species (ie SPAs & SACs), many of which are endangered or are important on a national or EU level but animals and plants exist everywhere and need to be encouraged everywhere. For example, the hedges that line our fields are called linear forests and are all that remain of our ancient forests - it is incredibly important to look after these and ensure that they're not cut down simply to create bigger fields for farmers.

I'm surprised to hear you say that. The hedgerows that line our fields were planted there from about 1600-1800. Most of the forests that once covered Ireland were cut down over 1000 years ago (many before the Celts arrived). The rows that are there now are not at risk either way, as they serve a useful purpose (that for which they were planted) in dividing fields. I also don't see how changing our farming habits will affect all the hedgerows all over the country. In the past we used more harmful chemicals than we do now, and they survived. As for life we cannot see, I hope you're not going to suggest we protect micro-organisms which don't only grow in one part of the world?

I can assure you that I'm very much ecologically aware. I just happen to think that nature is more resillant than you do. I also don't think a species extinction here or there is the end of the world. 99.99% of every species which has ever lived is extinct today, and every living species today will someday die out. Furthermore, while I believe very much that areas of natural beauty and biodiversity should be protected, I don't think farmland fits that criteria. In a place where mankind has altered the terrain for hundreds or thousands of years, "nature" has been swept away already. Anything left is just growing around what we put there. The real protection should be given to places where humans have not gone yet, like the rainforests, or the bogs.

Unfortunately, there is no proof that GM reduces the use of pesticides - rather it has only resulted in an increase in pesticide use and yet again, we underestimate nature's ability to adapt to what we throw at it:

I haven't heard that before. I've heard the opposite quite a bit. Of course, the fact that so few foods are GM limits sample size.

Thanks for the link. It seems the problem there is that the bug the GM crops were resistant to kept out other bugs, and when they died new pests came in. Seems to me the solution is to find a gene that kills these other bugs and insert it into the crops, and to keep up to date with new threats. In my view, this only strengthens the case for GM. It proves that GM has tangible benefits, and removes one of the "unknown consequences", making it very well known and providing a blueprint for what researchers need to know and take into account when modifying food.

After what you've written here, I'd be more careful about throwing around hypocritical insults like this..

I don't know what you're talking about. I've made claims, but my claims are based on evidence mixed with opinion. I've never claimed "proof" for anything. You'll find my posts are full of words like "seems" "suggested" "evidence" and so on. Claiming something is proven is a very heavy claim to make, one I do not make lightly.

No it doesn't. there's no proof in science? Thats nonsense.

Further evidence. That's right, science doesn't have proof. Of course, most of the green movement doesn't understand this.

. Bugs know to stay away. Put an apple out and watch what happens when the bugs go near it. They know more about it than we do in the respect that a bug will stay away from poison whereas a human will gladly eat the pretty red berry without a second thought. everyday we tuck into food that has been sprayed with poison...now thats smart!!

And how many people have fallen ill because of this poison? It kills insects, which is why we spray. If it killed humans, it wouldn't make much sense, would it?

They cause infertility and pesticide poisoning. Poisoning being the operative word here.

Of all the trillions and trillions of pieces of food we eat, how many people die because of the things we spray on them? Not many, to be sure. Don't forget that our bodies are constantly expelling toxic substances, so even if we ingest a few grams of chemicals over the course of a few years, we're not taking them all at once, and hence don't fall ill.

As I recall, the human race was far less healthy before modern farming was developed. If only the Irish had had fungicides in the 1840's...

djpbarry

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As for life we cannot see, I hope you're not going to suggest we protect micro-organisms which only grow in one part of the world?

Why not?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Furthermore, while I believe very much that areas of natural beauty and biodiversity should be protected, I don't think farmland fits that criteria. In a place where mankind has altered the terrain for hundreds or thousands of years, "nature" has been swept away already.

Are you saying that, because man has acted irresponsibly in a particular area in the past, it's ok for him to continue to do so?

20goto10

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And how many people have fallen ill because of this poison? It kills insects, which is why we spray. If it killed humans, it wouldn't make much sense, would it?

I'm not talking about killing people here. Just making them infertile. And thats the problem, infertility is not considered an illness. If it was then we'd be talking about huge restrictions on the use of pesticides or even an all out ban.

djpbarry

20goto10 wrote: »

I'm not talking about killing people here. Just making them infertile.

Got any evidence to back up this claim that pesticides are causing "large scale infertility problems"?

ChocolateSauce

djpbarry wrote: »

Why not?

Woops, typo fixed. I meant to say "which don't only grow in one place". Of course if there was a unique life form in one place it should be preserved if at all possible.

Are you saying that, because man has acted irresponsibly in a particular area in the past, it's ok for him to continue to do so?

No, but I am saying there is nothing irresponsible about maintaining our farmland as it is, or further modifying it as suits us.

I'm not talking about killing people here. Just making them infertile. And thats the problem, infertility is not considered an illness. If it was then we'd be talking about huge restrictions on the use of pesticides or even an all out ban.

What fertility problems exactly are you referring to? It's widely agreed that Europe's falling population decline is for sociological and not biological reasons. And no one is ever going to ban pesticides. If they were banned, organic fields which benefit from the "doughnut" effect would fall victim to insects too.

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm surprised to hear you say that. The hedgerows that line our fields were planted there from about 1600-1800. Most of the forests that once covered Ireland were cut down over 1000 years ago (many before the Celts arrived).

Many of our hedgerows date from that period but many more predate this period.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The rows that are there now are not at risk either way, as they serve a useful purpose (that for which they were planted) in dividing fields.

They are not just there to serve humans and have many uses to animals and birds. Can you please explain why you think they are not at risk.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I also don't see how changing our farming habits will affect all the hedgerows all over the country. In the past we used more harmful chemicals than we do now, and they survived. As for life we cannot see, I hope you're not going to suggest we protect micro-organisms which don't only grow in one part of the world?

This is a strange question. The argument that we used to use more harmful chemicals is not a valid one to continue the overuse of harmful chemicals today.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I can assure you that I'm very much ecologically aware. I just happen to think that nature is more resillant than you do. I also don't think a species extinction here or there is the end of the world. 99.99% of every species which has ever lived is extinct today, and every living species today will someday die out. Furthermore, while I believe very much that areas of natural beauty and biodiversity should be protected, I don't think farmland fits that criteria. In a place where mankind has altered the terrain for hundreds or thousands of years, "nature" has been swept away already. Anything left is just growing around what we put there. The real protection should be given to places where humans have not gone yet, like the rainforests, or the bogs.

I understand this point of view but there are practically no places on earth that haven't been touched by humans and it isn't about not allowing places to change. Nature changes all the time. It's about minimising the negative impact of humans on the environment.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I haven't heard that before. I've heard the opposite quite a bit. Of course, the fact that so few foods are GM limits sample size.

Which would equally impact on results arguing that GM reduces pesticides as well.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Thanks for the link. It seems the problem there is that the bug the GM crops were resistant to kept out other bugs, and when they died new pests came in. Seems to me the solution is to find a gene that kills these other bugs and insert it into the crops, and to keep up to date with new threats. In my view, this only strengthens the case for GM. It proves that GM has tangible benefits, and removes one of the "unknown consequences", making it very well known and providing a blueprint for what researchers need to know and take into account when modifying food.

For me, it just proves there are always unintended consequences of our actions and this technology needs to be rigourously tested before it is released. As once you let it out of the box, it is practically impossible to get it back in.

I don't see how this result is in any way a positive for GM. It is a step towards understanding GM, but I wouldn't put it down as a positive result for GM.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I don't know what you're talking about. I've made claims, but my claims are based on evidence mixed with opinion. I've never claimed "proof" for anything. You'll find my posts are full of words like "seems" "suggested" "evidence" and so on. Claiming something is proven is a very heavy claim to make, one I do not make lightly.

What evidence?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Further evidence. That's right, science doesn't have proof. Of course, most of the green movement doesn't understand this..

Again, somewhat hypocritical coming from someone who has yet to provide any "proof".

20goto10

djpbarry wrote: »

Got any evidence to back up this claim that pesticides are causing "large scale infertility problems"?

OK I'll admit to exagerating. There is evidence to suggest it can cause fertility problems. I don't have a link I saw it in a documentary, in which they went into the evidence btw.

And as a counter argument where is the evidence that pesticides are harmless to huimans?

Anyway, back to the OP, I did a weekly shop in Superquinn yesterday and was able to find most of my regular shop there. I was actually very surprised with the wide range (not just fruit and veg but tinned products, dairy, pastas, rice etc) and the cost came to about 10 euro more than what I would usually spend (for 2 people).

I'd also like to add that everything tastes absolutely delicious

djpbarry

20goto10 wrote: »

There is evidence to suggest it can cause fertility problems. I don't have a link I saw it in a documentary, in which they went into the evidence btw.

In which case I am going to discount your claim.

20goto10 wrote: »

And as a counter argument where is the evidence that pesticides are harmless to huimans?

Ah, the old negative evidence argument. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that pesticides are harmful to humans, it is reasonable to assume that they are harmless.

Where is the evidence that badgers cannot fly?

20goto10

djpbarry wrote: »

In which case I am going to discount your claim.
Ah, the old negative evidence argument. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that pesticides are harmful to humans, it is reasonable to assume that they are harmless.

Where is the evidence that badgers cannot fly?

Wow wow hang on a minute. There is plenty of evidence that pesticides are poisonous. Go take a swig of some pesticides and see how you get on. And no I'm not going to get you some links. Type "pesticide poisoning" into Google and have a look for yourself. Do the same for "pesticide and fertility" or go and talk to a fertility doctor and ask them why pesticides is on their list of environmental causes of infertility.

I know the argument is that it's harmless in small doses. But the same can be said for most poisons, it doesn't mean I'm happy to have them all sprayed on my food and as I've already pointed out the dosage is measured on a product by product basis and it does not take into account the overall levels in a persons diet.

Another fact (yes "fact") is that consumers will decide whether it is ok or not. Not farmer funded research or anything else for that matter. There is a slow but steady move towards organic food. Unfortunately its still considered as luxury items but that will change when demand increases. And if this kills off mass farming then thats an added bonus, particularly when talking about live stock.

djpbarry

20goto10 wrote: »

There is plenty of evidence that pesticides are poisonous. Go take a swig of some pesticides and see how you get on.

:rolleyes: As I said before, toxicity depends on the dosage.

20goto10 wrote: »

Type "pesticide poisoning" into Google and have a look for yourself. Do the same for "pesticide and fertility" or go and talk to a fertility doctor and ask them why pesticides is on their list of environmental causes of infertility.

Younglai et al., 2005 wrote:

This review highlights the paucity of studies on the exposure of couples to environmental insults including environmental contaminants and the association with IVF success, the problems associated with the interpretation of such data sets and the need for further well-designed studies. Across each domain examined in this review there is little consistency among study findings. Moreover, the paucity of literature makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions other than to suggest that, despite growing IVF success and exposure to environmental contaminants concern, the evidence linking environmental factors and impaired human fertility is weak.

http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/1/43

20goto10 wrote: »

I know the argument is that it's harmless in small doses. But the same can be said for most poisons…

The same can be said for pretty much anything, actually; a substance is not inherently poisonous. It is the dosage of that substance that determines whether or not it is poisonous.

20goto10 wrote: »

There is a slow but steady move towards organic food.

Is there? Even if there has been, I doubt it will continue in the current economic climate.

20goto10 wrote: »

Unfortunately its still considered as luxury items but that will change when demand increases.

Why will demand increase when organic food is (generally) more expensive?

20goto10 wrote: »

And if this kills off mass farming then thats an added bonus…

Because?

20goto10

djpbarry wrote: »

Why will demand increase when organic food is (generally) more expensive?

Because people don't like poison sprayed on their food. Besides that, chemically sprayed food tastes like sh!t in comparison. And there's a reason it tastes like sh!t and that reason is blindingly obvious. You don't need a "link" to figure that one out. Also, like everything new it starts off expensive. Technological advances and consumer demand leading to investment, leading to more technological advancement. You don't even need technology, you just need more organic farmers. Locally produced food for local people.

robtri

forgive me if I am wrong here, but surely too much organic farming is a bad thing, if we look at history, the great famine was caused by a blight, but does not really have much bearing today because certain chemicals keep it at bay, and I am fairly sure no one has died or being harmed from eating potatoes recently... ( i am open to corrections on that one)

so if we went all organic, all it would take is an outbreak like blight to wipe out farming for a year or two.... then what are the farmers to do, they would have to be massively subsidised and then we would have to pay more for extra food to be shipped in....

what we need is balance, organic farming has it place and so does current farming methods...

20goto10

robtri wrote: »

forgive me if I am wrong here, but surely too much organic farming is a bad thing, if we look at history, the great famine was caused by a blight, but does not really have much bearing today because certain chemicals keep it at bay, and I am fairly sure no one has died or being harmed from eating potatoes recently... ( i am open to corrections on that one)

so if we went all organic, all it would take is an outbreak like blight to wipe out farming for a year or two.... then what are the farmers to do, they would have to be massively subsidised and then we would have to pay more for extra food to be shipped in....

what we need is balance, organic farming has it place and so does current farming methods...

I'd agree with that. Pesticides certainly would have their uses, such as if there was an outbreak of blight. But technology has advanced since the 1840's. We're smart enough to come up with ideas that do not involve spraying chemicals.

Macha

robtri wrote: »

what we need is balance, organic farming has it place and so does current farming methods...

Here's how I see it: conventional farming methods are unsustainable for the following reasons:

-they reduce biodiversity through the use of pesticides and monocrops
-they are more energy intensive (as you are effectively fighting nature at every step) and are totally dependent on oil from farm machinery to fertilizers to pesticides to transportation etc
-they are ruining the natural fertility of our soils, hence the constant need to import fertility in the form of artificial fertilizers.
-natural products become "outputs" or waste, like animal manure - a problem and cost to be dealt with

The "Green Revolution" of the mid 20th-century did nothing but allow us to exploit and use up nature's resources more quickly. The extraction of resources sped-up but the amount of resources that exist is still finite.

The current system maximises productivity at all costs (EU-enforced exceptions apply) but is based on the concept of cheap energy instead of contemporary sunshine. It has no choice but to change.

Organic is an alternative concept and it may not be the full solution but it certainly provides a different view and may hold some of the keys to the future of agriculture.

robtri

20goto10 wrote: »

I'd agree with that. Pesticides certainly would have their uses, such as if there was an outbreak of blight. But technology has advanced since the 1840's. We're smart enough to come up with ideas that do not involve spraying chemicals.

can you tell me how we would fight blight and other crippling diseases without using chemiclas then??

robtri

taconnol wrote: »

-they reduce biodiversity through the use of pesticides and monocrops

I agree with your statment, but I fail to see how that will end our current farming methods

taconnol wrote: »

-they are more energy intensive (as you are effectively fighting nature at every step) and are totally dependent on oil from farm machinery to fertilizers to pesticides to transportation etc

ehhhhh organic farmers use tractors, and lorries to deliver food stuff, so are they up the creek as well?????
I believe that oil isn't really used for pesticides.... not sure on fertilizers, but I believe it isn't a huge part..

taconnol wrote: »

-they are ruining the natural fertility of our soils, hence the constant need to import fertility in the form of artificial fertilizers.

organic farmers use fertilisers as well, so they are responsible for ruining the natural fertility of the soils as well, according to your logic,

taconnol wrote: »

-natural products become "outputs" or waste, like animal manure - a problem and cost to be dealt with

actually no, most current non organic farmers use the natural products/waste on there farms, thats why if you where on a farm ever for any period of time, you would smell the slurry being spread before planting...

taconnol wrote: »

Organic is an alternative concept and it may not be the full solution but it certainly provides a different view and may hold some of the keys to the future of agriculture.

Something we agree on, but so to does current farming applications...

out of curiousity, have you ever worked on a farm or lived on farm and seen hows its is actually done and what is used?

Macha

robtri wrote: »

I agree with your statment, but I fail to see how that will end our current farming methods

Nothing will end our current farming methods except acceptance that they are unsustainable.

robtri wrote: »

ehhhhh organic farmers use tractors, and lorries to deliver food stuff, so are they up the creek as well?????
I believe that oil isn't really used for pesticides.... not sure on fertilizers, but I believe it isn't a huge part..

I'm aware that organic farmers use the same. I'm talking about an entire overhaul of the entire agricultural system from farm to fork. However, permaculture farms use far less heavy machinery than standard farms. And yes if there isn't any oil left, there isn't any oil!!
Many pesticides are petroleum-based and the vast majority of fertilizers are petroleum-based.

robtri wrote: »

organic farmers use fertilisers as well, so they are responsible for ruining the natural fertility of the soils as well, according to your logic,

If you had read through my entire post, you would have noticed I said that organic was not the perfect answer. You cannot simply refute my points by saying "oh organic does that as well". MY points still stand.

robtri wrote: »

actually no, most current non organic farmers use the natural products/waste on there farms, thats why if you where on a farm ever for any period of time, you would smell the slurry being spread before planting...

I am aware of that. However, many farmers produce a surplus of waste products, which wash into our rivers and cause eutrophication. The most recent EPA report on the issue clearly points to agriculture as one of the main culprits.

robtri wrote: »

out of curiousity, have you ever worked on a farm or lived on farm and seen hows its is actually done and what is used?

Something tells me your question isn't just "out of curiosity" but an attempt to undermine my opinions if I give you the wrong answer.
My mother grew up on a farm, I spent many summers on her family farm working - unfortunately the family have recently been pushed out of farming for many systemic reasons. I have also researched this subject to MSc level and have read very extensively through both the mainstream literature and scientific studies on the issues.

Judgement Day

'actually no, most current non organic farmers use the natural products/waste on there farms, thats why if you where on a farm ever for any period of time, you would smell the slurry being spread before planting.'..


The trouble is that a great deal of this farm waste is not beneficial to the land or the rivers, lakes etc that it often finds its way into, and is spread on the land because there is no other way of getting rid of it.

Of course Organic farmers use road transport to bring their products to market but given their reduced use of artificial fertilisers there is a saving on road transport of this item. There is also a saving in the reduced production of these artificial fertilisers. The production of artificial fertilisers and the detrimental effect of these factories on the ebvironment was well illustrated by the NET factory at Arklow. The plant caused pollution of the river and every tree downwind of the plant was killed off - incidentally the town of Arklow was also downwind of the factory.

20goto10

robtri wrote: »

can you tell me how we would fight blight and other crippling diseases without using chemiclas then??

Battling blight the organic way

I would also expect to see the use of more advanced technology in agriculture. for example, a clean green house similar to the labs used for developing computer components (obviously not as drastic as to keep dust particles out but something similar).

robtri

20goto10 wrote: »

Battling blight the organic way

I would also expect to see the use of more advanced technology in agriculture. for example, a clean green house similar to the labs used for developing computer components (obviously not as drastic as to keep dust particles out but something similar).

Sorry if I missed something in the link, but it doesn't really stop blight, doesn't tell you much....

with all due respect if you expect to see farms in ireland covered with these green house you mention, I seriously think you are so far out of touch.....
A friend of mine has 100 acres in crops, which is not large, where will he get 100 acres of green house??? and that would have a much more dramatic effect on the bio-diversity in the area's....

djpbarry

20goto10 wrote: »

Battling blight the organic way

The so-called “success stories” in that article are, at best, some interesting research findings, but there’s no reason why the benefit of those findings should be restricted to organic production, is there?

20goto10 wrote: »

I would also expect to see the use of more advanced technology in agriculture. for example, a clean green house similar to the labs used for developing computer components (obviously not as drastic as to keep dust particles out but something similar).

Why? That sounds ridiculously inefficient. Growing potatoes in a clean room?!?

Mr.Boots

I have a restaurant and use Orgainic Irish veg, the difference over conventionally grown veg is amazing, they just taste so much better.
I dont know the sience but i do know that conventional growing involves the use of chemicals to maximise yeild, Organicly grown veg is grown more naturally and therefore slower, allowing the plant to mature naturally and the flavour to be more intense.
Try it yourself, if you still dont think so then your mouth is dead.
As for you arguments about chemicals being bad/not bad for you....cop on!!! of course they are bad for you, they all have a skull and cross bones on the packaging.

djpbarry

Mr.Boots wrote: »

As for you arguments about chemicals being bad/not bad for you....cop on!!! of course they are bad for you, they all have a skull and cross bones on the packaging.

Best live out the rest of your days in a bubble, because there's a wide range of potentially toxic substances that occur naturally in the environment.