Comparing Organic vs Non-Organic Bananas

[Evo]

Michael Traub is president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians

Naturopathic

naturopathy

Naturopathy is a system of therapy and treatment which relies exclusively on natural remedies, such as sunlight, air, water, supplemented with diet and therapies such as massage. However, some naturopaths have been known to prescribe such unnatural treatments as colon hydrotherapy for such diseases as asthma and arthritis.

Naturopathy is based on the belief that the body is self-healing. The body will repair itself and recover from illness spontaneously if it is in a healthy environment. Naturopaths have many remedies and recommendations for creating a healthy environment so the body can spontaneously heal itself.

Naturopaths claim to be holistic, which means they believe that the natural body is joined to a supernatural soul and a non-physical mind and the three must be treated as a unit, whatever that means. Naturopathy is fond of such terms as "balance" and "harmony" and "energy." It is often rooted in mysticism and a metaphysical belief in vitalism (Barrett).

http://skepdic.com/natpathy.html

 

[jimmie]

Naturopathic

Scientific evidence by any other name... is still scientific evidence.

Uhhhh...soooo...does scientific evidence from The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition carry any weight at PF?

 

[Evo]

Scientific evidence by any other name... is still scientific evidence.

That's LACK of scientific evidence, it's arm waving mumbo jumbo.

If you don't want caffeine in your coffee, you don't have to drink caffeinated coffee.

 

[loseyourname]

There was a study a few years back that made the New York Times demonstrating that caffeine can make sperm more virile over the span of a few hours. So if you're trying to impregnate someone, it's possible (assuming the study is correct) that drinking some caffeinated coffee about an hour before can increase your chances.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm glad to see you've provided more appropriate support for your argument now. There are pros and cons to coffee consumption; if you wish to continue discussing the studies related to that, feel free to start up a new thread on the topic.

I believe that it is feasible for all individuals on the planet to eat ONLY organic foods, IF, the land and produce that is currently utilized to support products that are not needed, such as coffee, were utilized for products that are needed, like a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds, but not all seeds.

Since this is the on-topic argument you're presenting, can you now demonstrate that the crops that are "not needed" are grown in the same places as "needed" crops? You still need to support this particular argument. Here are some questions you'll need to answer to support your argument:

1) How do you define "needed" and "non-needed" crops? Right now, this remains rather subjective. Are you talking about nutrititive crops? Crops that provide materials for clothing, such as cotton and hemp? Crops that provide animal feed? Crops that provide employment to large numbers of workers? Crops that support vast industries and have a large impact on the economy?

2) How much land is used for "non-needed" crops vs "needed" crops, and how much more land would be required if all "needed" crops were organic? Is the difference sufficient?

3) Can the same land currently being used for "non-needed" crops actually be used for the "needed" crops? For example, a lot of coffee is grown using sustainable agriculture practices within the rainforest (no, not all, but your statement does not allow for such exceptions). This land could not be used for other crops without also destroying the rainforests, thus you'd need to subtract this out from any calculation of available land for your "needed" organic crops (since it seems you're listing coffee as "non-needed").

4)Your statement above seems to suggest that animals as a food and fiber source would no longer be included under your "plan." Is that correct? And if it is correct, then how much more cropland would be required to replace the animal component of our diet with entirely crop sources? Would this would include non-nutritive crops, such as cotton, to replace animal fiber for clothing, or should clothing be all synthetic? Please factor in the environmental impact of each of these alternatives; keep in mind not just the growing stage, but also the processing of the fibers and pollution resultant from such processes.

5) When factoring in the land required for crops, in addition to the additional land required for normal crop loss due to disease and pests, please also factor in the additional space needed between crops as a buffer zone to protect them from the rapid spread of such diseases.

6) Please take into account the human labor factor. Organically grown food requires an enormous amount of human labor to do things such as pick bugs off plants and pull weeds from between them, because you can't just automate those processes. Where will this labor force come from in a non-agrarian society?

7) Lastly, if the "non-needed" crops are no longer grown on that land, what will stop the landowners from using it for something other than crops when it's no longer as profitable to grow organic foods on the same land as their previous crops were? For example, they may sell it for new housing developments, highway construction/expansion, developing a mall, etc. And, if that land can be freed up, why would it be a better use for organically grown crops rather than allowing it to be protected greenspace and returned to a natural habitat?

 

[Smurf]

That's LACK of scientific evidence, it's arm waving mumbo jumbo.

Scientific Evidence or not, it seems to work.

 

[Mk]

Iodine is an element that is needed by the human body in "trace" amounts to help ensure a 'right' metabolism, the processes within all the eukaryote cells inside the human body, is maintained.
Any plant/vegetable/fruit that is grown in soil that is rich in iodine, such as coastal areas that are directly exposed to seawater, is a source of iodine.

Although the element is actually quite rare, kelp and a few other plants can concentrate iodine, which helps introduce the element into the food chain as well as keeping its cost down. I would NOT say "any plant." But if near a coastline, iodine is more likely to be in the food you eat because something along the line before you probably ate kelp.

"I" believe that caffeine is not needed by the human body, and "I" believe that "I am" "right".

Yes, its ok, we all know one does not need caffeine to survive. The joke has just gone too far. Right?

There was a study a few years back that made the New York Times demonstrating that caffeine can make sperm more virile over the span of a few hours. So if you're trying to impregnate someone, it's possible (assuming the study is correct) that drinking some caffeinated coffee about an hour before can increase your chances.

I remember on MYTHBUSTERS, Adam and Jamie consumed caffeine in various doses, and their sperm did not have any visible changes, after ejaculation.

To conclude my post:

 

[jimmie]

First, you have articulated your seven points of concern, well.

1) How do you define "needed" and "non-needed" crops?

I am defining needed "products" and "not-needed products", that are known as "food", for human beings, as the title of the current thread relates to "Organic Foods".

A "needed food product" is ONLY an organically grown substance that is usually 'freshly-harvested' from the source it grew from, and includes only fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, plants, herbs, or seeds, or derivatives thereof, such as oils.

A 'not-needed food product' is any product that is not a needed food product.

Despite statistical scientific data that provides overwhelming support for proving a particular theory, there is ALWAYS an individual "willing" to argue against that scientifical data.

The World Health Organization estimates that tobacco addiction kills 5 million people worldwide each year, including more than 400,000 Americans. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence that smoking is directly linked to killing individuals, there are individuals that intend to argue against the evidence, and that it has not been proved that smoking is harmful.

The on-topic "argument" I have presented is about ONLY making use of that which is available, either land or produce, for ONLY a "needed food product".

According to anheuser-busch.com, Anheuser-Busch is the largest purchaser of rice in the United States, accounting for more than 8 percent of all domestic rice consumption. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the total amount of rice consumption in the U.S. for 2003/2004 was 3,882 thousand metric tons; 310.56 thousand metric tons of rice COULD HAVE been utilized in its "pre-processed-for-beer-state" to provide food for individuals, if the product "Budweiser beer" was not mass-produced.

According to World Tobacco, the area planted to all types of tobacco in the US in 2003 was estimated at 413,710 acres.

How much "needed food products" COULD HAVE been grown on that land instead of tobacco? I do not know, and I do not need to know. What I do know is that tobacco is not needed.

However, to present statistical "scientific" data to "support" that which I believe and know is right, simply to end a particular "argument", and to answer each of the seven points you have brought up and try to "convince" any individual my plan is "right" is futile, so long as products that are not "right" such as "Folgers" and "Budweiser" are mass-produced and mass-distributed. A particular argument will never "end" so long as one individual intends to argue.

I shall no longer participate in "particular" arguments with any individual why ONLY needed products should be mass-produced, because I believe that individuals that intend to be right intend to not argue about why ONLY needed food products should be mass-produced and mass-distributed, and it is those individuals ONLY that "I" intend to be with.

You still need to support this particular argument.

As this is a forum dedicated to science

The particular "argument" I have presented on "Organic Foods", is consistent with my particular "arguments"/posts on various other threads at PF, and in fact is one part of a WHOLE argument that only "I" have presented on PF, and it is common knowledge within the scientific community that the WHOLE, being the sum of all "particulars", is greater than: either any "particular" or the sum of all "particulars".

 

[Smurf]

I remember on MYTHBUSTERS, Adam and Jamie consumed caffeine in various doses, and their sperm did not have any visible changes, after ejaculation.
To conclude my post:

they actually did that?

 

[jimmie]

To conclude my post:

Good one. I guess it is my official TM at PF.

 

[loseyourname]

I remember on MYTHBUSTERS, Adam and Jamie consumed caffeine in various doses, and their sperm did not have any visible changes, after ejaculation.

I found references to the study, though I could not find the study itself. It was conducted by researchers at Sao Paolo University and presented to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. There is an overview of the presentation at the website for BUPA:

Elsewhere in the world, Brazilian researchers sought to correlate sperm quality with daily coffee intake. They discovered that men who regularly drank coffee had sperm with better strength and endurance than men who did not drink coffee.

Experts expressed interest in the studies, saying they back up previous suspicions about the effects of coffee and marijuana on male fertility.

link

It seems like more than an urban myth, and personally, I'll take my chances with university studies presented at national medical societies over a claim made on a television show based on two guys studying themselves.

 

[Mk]

It seems like more than an urban myth, and personally, I'll take my chances with university studies presented at national medical societies over a claim made on a television show based on two guys studying themselves.

Definitely. After reading the link I'll say marijuana is not good for sperm and caffeine boosts speed.

 

[Moonbear]

First, you have articulated your seven points of concern, well.

Yes, and so far you have barely scratched the surface of one of them, thus have yet to sufficiently support your argument.

I am defining needed "products" and "not-needed products", that are known as "food", for human beings, as the title of the current thread relates to "Organic Foods".
A "needed food product" is ONLY an organically grown substance that is usually 'freshly-harvested' from the source it grew from, and includes only fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, plants, herbs, or seeds, or derivatives thereof, such as oils.
A 'not-needed food product' is any product that is not a needed food product.

You use your term in your definition. That doesn't clarify anything. So, "needed" is only a food crop? What about cotton? Cotton can be either a food crop (cottonseed oil) or fiber crop.

Despite statistical scientific data that provides overwhelming support for proving a particular theory, there is ALWAYS an individual "willing" to argue against that scientifical data.
The World Health Organization estimates that tobacco addiction kills 5 million people worldwide each year, including more than 400,000 Americans. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence that smoking is directly linked to killing individuals, there are individuals that intend to argue against the evidence, and that it has not been proved that smoking is harmful.

But you didn't limit your argument to tobacco earlier, you included coffee and cocoa as well (there was an earlier comment refuting chocolate as a needed crop as well). Yet, the studies you continue to cite regarding coffee deal only with its caffeine content. We've had threads here in the past citing that some of the other aromatic compounds in freshly brewed coffee have health benefits. I'll dig some of them up later. As Evo has pointed out, you can always drink decaffeinated coffee if you are concerned about the caffeine content. So you'll need some studies that address aspects other than caffeine in coffee.

The on-topic "argument" I have presented is about ONLY making use of that which is available, either land or produce, for ONLY a "needed food product".

That's rather vague. You still haven't made a clear definition of what is a "needed" food product.

According to anheuser-busch.com, Anheuser-Busch is the largest purchaser of rice in the United States, accounting for more than 8 percent of all domestic rice consumption. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the total amount of rice consumption in the U.S. for 2003/2004 was 3,882 thousand metric tons; 310.56 thousand metric tons of rice COULD HAVE been utilized in its "pre-processed-for-beer-state" to provide food for individuals, if the product "Budweiser beer" was not mass-produced.

Is there a rice shortage somewhere? Seriously, rice is one thing that we seem to have plenty of excess to ship to famine-stricken regions. You can't grow much else on the land that rice is grown on, since it is grown in wet locations where other crops would just rot. If we switched those over to entirely organic operations to use only for food and not alcohol (we can use the corn for alcohol for medicinal/antiseptic use I suppose), would that be nearly enough to make up for all the crop losses that would occur? What happens when a disease spreads through all the crops because nobody wants to treat them for it?

On a side note, here's information from the Anheuser-Busch site about their farms:

Nutri-Turf, Inc. (NTI) -- NTI in Jacksonville, Fla., has developed a wildlife sanctuary at its facility with 125 acres of man-made wetland habitat. The pond and wetland areas were designed to be a functioning part of the facility's operations. This habitat supports more than 750 species of plants and wildlife, including 13 animal species on the endangered and protected list. These include more than 25 woodstorks. The Wildlife Habitat Council has recognized the value of this project by certifying it as a Corporate Wildlife Habitat.

Elk Mountain Hop Farm -- The farm has integrated wildlife habitat management into its daily operation in Boundary County, Idaho. Depth and diversity of the projects range from wetland/waterfowl, updated game bird, song bird and big game habitat enhancement. Hop farm practices serve as a role model to surrounding agricultural operations on how farming operations and wildlife programs can be sustained in harmony. More than 600 acres of prime wildlife habitat are an integral part of the hop farm operation.

Barley research -- New barley varieties developed by BARI are designed to increase production and quality, thereby helping to ensure a steady, uncompromised supply of quality ingredients to Anheuser-Busch. These varieties provide a positive environmental benefit to contract growers by reducing the use of fuel, water, chemicals or energy while increasing yields. Annual savings for growers are in excess of $2.5 million. The growers' revenues also increase by $5.5 million per year.

According to World Tobacco, the area planted to all types of tobacco in the US in 2003 was estimated at 413,710 acres.
How much "needed food products" COULD HAVE been grown on that land instead of tobacco? I do not know, and I do not need to know. What I do know is that tobacco is not needed.

Only a drop in the bucket.
In the US alone, there were 72.7 MILLION acres of corn grown, 72.7 million acres of soybeans, 53.0 million acres of wheat, 13.1 million acres of cotton (remember, cotton crops can be food or fiber, and given its absorbent properties, there isn't likely another fiber that would be equivalent for example in medical applications), 7.7 million acres of sorghum (a type of grain), and 3.0 million acres of rice.

Statistics obtained here: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/cropmajor.html

As of 2000, there were 670 million acres of croplands worldwide, with 16% of them already being GM crops. http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/display.php3?FactsheetID=1

I'm not arguing that tobacco is a good thing, or that it needs to continue to be grown, just that making that land available for food crops is not going to sufficiently address the demands of switching ALL agriculture to organic farming. Given the added crop losses that would occur, as have been discussed earlier in this thread, a paltry 415,000 acres is not going to help.

 

[jimmie]

Only a drop in the bucket.

Hence, the relationship between a particular "argument" within the WHOLE "argument".

Let it be known: a BUCKET can contain MANY drops, and drops that are not contained, evaporate.

Any particular individual can present any particular argument for any particular subject, including Organic Foods.

However, not every individual can present a WHOLE argument, because to present a WHOLE argument, particular "arguments" that have "one" consistent theme and that support each other across various topics/threads, such as Organic Foods, an individual must intend to make the lives of "other" beings his priority.

And that is the particular "argument" I have intended to present in Organic Foods: individuals that make their "self" the priority will intend to argue against organic foods and will indirectly support the existence of "foods" that are not needed by demanding that "arguments" be centered upon JUSTIFYING the existence and production and harvesting of organic foods.

However, an individual that makes their "other-than-self" the priority, as "I" have, will intend to argue for organic foods and will indirectly support the EXTINCTION of "foods" that are not needed by demanding that "arguments" be centered upon JUSTIFYING the existence and production and harvesting of foods for products that are not needed.

And, while the mere fact that one unit of one particular product that is sold anywhere to anyone at any point may confirm the existence of that product, confirmation of existence does not equal JUSTIFICATION of existence; justification confirms the existence of a product is "right".

I have presented information in an effort to justify that "Organic foods" are "right". You, Moonbear, have played "devil's advocate" by refuting the argument I have presented.

just that making that land available for food crops is not going to sufficiently address the demands of switching ALL agriculture to organic farming. Given the added crop losses that would occur, as have been discussed earlier in this thread, a paltry 415,000 acres is not going to help.

Thus far, Moonbear, the "argument" that you and I have had has been whether or not I can justify expanding the use, and thus the existence and production and harvesting, of organic foods in places that currently grow food crops for products that are not needed.

Thus, I argue that by switching ALL agriculture to organic farming, for the purpose of producing and harvesting ONLY organic foods that are needed (foods from ONLY the 'plant' kingdom), such as fresh fruit, vegetables, nuts, plants, herbs, seeds, and grains, and delivering those organic foods in their 'whole' state (harvested, cleaned, bulk packaged, delivered to wholesale/retail outlet) is "right".

Also, I have "argued" that the use or expansion of food crops that are used for mass-produced products that are not needed, ultimately restricts available lands and food crops that could be used for the production of organic foods to possibly sufficiently address the demands for organic foods from individuals that do not have organic foods, and thus, inhibits individuals from EATING organic foods, which directly inhibits their ability to LIVE, and ARGUE, and therefore, is not "right".

Now then, Moonbear, please present your particular "argument", that justifies why using or expanding the use of food crops for the following mass-produced products is "right", and please include scientific data to support your "argument":

vodka, rum, whisky, skotch, gin, cigars, cigarettes, chewing tobacco, "Twinkies"

Only a drop

And, may I remind you Moonbear, you have failed to provide a WHOLE argument, and that any "particular" argument you do provide that is not "right", shall "evaporate" without the BUCKET.

 

[Mk]

Let it be known: a BUCKET can contain MANY drops, and drops that are not contained, evaporate.

Sorry man, that's a terrible argument.

vodka, rum, whisky, skotch, gin, cigars, cigarettes, chewing tobacco, "Twinkies"

Did you not hear me?

Humans are tough weeds, and can survive with or without damn near anything. But why not make those mattresses, toasters, chocolate and forks, so we can be happier, safer, and more productive citizens?

But I think your point was that those things are not good for humans, even though we continue to make them. Cigarettes, chewing tobacco, I agree those are almost "not good period."

You added Twinkies at the end (or perhaps one of the first things you thought of), which is strange because I think that fits more into the cakes and sweets category, that we should continue to produce.

Not to mention all the things you mentioned are either natural, or almost natural, as well as having no meat in them.

 

[jimmie]

Sorry man, that's a terrible argument.

To understand THAT argument, you would need to read several of my other posts in other threads.

Not to mention all the things you mentioned are either natural, or almost natural, as well as having no meat in them..

And...uhhh...they are NOT NEEDED.

Did you not hear me?

Mk, it's about ALL individuals living with ALL products that are NEEDED, and that is possible ONLY if the products that are NOT needed, are NOT produced.

It's not about being "tough as weeds, being able to survive with or without damn near anything".

It IS about LIVING, with everything that is NEEDED.

Mk, did you not hear Me?

 

[Mk]

lol here's a quote from a local PF member, that was posted in another thread.

Hmm... living in a world with only basic needs? BORING.

 

[jimmie]

lol here's a quote from a local PF member, that was posted in another thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penguino
Hmm... living in a world with only basic needs? BORING.

What gave you the idea, Mk, that living with ONLY needs would be "boring"?

And, where exactly in my particular "argument", have I stated that all of the needs to be supplied would be "only basic"?

Remember, Mk, the thread is about "Organic Foods", and I have attempted to restrict my posts to be as relevant to the thread as possible, lest an individual's behaviour to the opposite becomes "generally annoying", and as such, have not elaborated as to what "living in a right world with all needs provided for" would include, which would include and not be limited to ALL video games (individuals NEED games), ALL forms of transporation, including and not limited to cars, trucks, trains, bikes, motorbikes, sleds, ski-doos, jet-skis, boats, planes (as individuals NEED personal transportation), NOT ALL forms of fuel for ALL automobiles (some forms of fuel would be 'phased-out' for ONLY particular uses due to its inherent non-renewable nature, such as 'fossil-fuels'), ALL devices for communications, including and not limited to phones, computers, radios (individuals NEED communications), ALL clothing (many individuals NEED to be clothed), any device created to record or store 'music' (many individuals NEED to hear music).

Furthermore, living with ONLY all needs provided would enable individuals to travel ANYWHERE they choose at any point, due to the fact that "borders", and all the ensuing "red-tape" inherent with "borders", are NOT needed. Such mobility for ALL individuals, which is unheardof in today's "modern" society, would ensure that all individuals are FREE to LIVE at the geographic location they choose to live.

Now, does that really sound "boring" to you?

By the way, if you "want" that cup of coffee, you grow the coffee beans, you ground them up, and you brew it your "self".

 

[Evo]

"living in a right world with all needs provided for" would include, which would include and not be limited to ALL video games (individuals NEED games),

What is all this nonsense about "right"? YOUR right, is not MY right. It's a meaningless term. Video games are not needed, so in a world of only what we "need" no video games

ALL forms of transporation, including and not limited to cars, trucks, trains, bikes, motorbikes, sleds, ski-doos, jet-skis, boats, planes (as individuals NEED personal transportation),

False, not needed.

ALL devices for communications, including and not limited to phones, computers, radios (individuals NEED communications),

False, not needed.

ALL clothing (many individuals NEED to be clothed),

False, not needed.

any device created to record or store 'music' (many individuals NEED to hear music).

False, not needed.

Furthermore, living with ONLY all needs provided would enable individuals to travel ANYWHERE they choose at any point, due to the fact that "borders", and all the ensuing "red-tape" inherent with "borders", are NOT needed.

This is absolute nonsense.

Such mobility for ALL individuals, which is unheardof in today's "modern" society, would ensure that all individuals are FREE to LIVE at the geographic location they choose to live.

You really have no clue what would happen in this scenario, do you? Do you know what happens when more people try to live in an area than can be supported?

By the way, if you "want" that cup of coffee, you grow the coffee beans, you ground them up, and you brew it your "self".

Why, are you planning to manufacture your own car?

Either this thread gets back on topic or it will be closed.

 

[jimmie]

Either this thread gets back on topic or it will be closed.

The current post that the reader is reading is my final post on the current thread, entitled "Organic Foods".