

Wheat crops in India  (Source: NY Times)
Populations around the Himalayas at risk












Comments     Threshold


Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By Schadenfroh on 6/11/2010 1:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
So, does this mean that the critics of modern agricultural techniques will finally STFU and use the discoveries that science has provided us?

I am tired of hearing so many of the same people that are concerned about man's impact on the climate and the poor not being able to afford food complain about synthetic pesticides, genetically modified organisms, modern (ie non-organic) farming techniques and a bizarre fascination with "locally grown produce" in climates less efficient at growing certain types of crops on-mass.

By clovell on 6/11/2010 2:36:26 PM , Rating: 5
This is something I've really done a lot of thinking, reading, and soul-searching on, so I wanted to offer my views from a moderate standpoint.

Locally grown produce is about a lot more than touchy-feely stuff. It's about economics and urban planning more than anthing else.

It's a simple concept - You can't have people living in a place where there is no food. If all the food in an area has to be trucked in, that's not especially a good thing. It affects urban planning, makes the area reliant on shipping routes, and probably most important of all, it creates a barrier between the residents and one of their most important daily activities - what they stuff into their face.

Local produce is something we should all try our best to support - without being crazy about it. Example - I live in Chicago. In a couple weeks, farmer's markets will open up through the end of September. I'll go there. I will not buy 30 lbs of tomatoes in September, though, and can them at home - I can buy canned tomatoes just fine in the store when it's snowing outside.

Genetically modified food is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it makes crops easier, faster, bigger, and more efficient. On the other hand, it totally screws with biodiversity. The instant a pest develops just the right mutation, the entire soybean crop of the United States of America could be wiped out. Does that mean we nix genetically modified crops? No, it means we keep conventional crops in the lifecycle, and continue to cross-breed them.


No, at the end of the day, it's about being closer to your food than just a label, a trademark, a nutrition fact sheet. It's about being involved - not politically, but conciously.

It's summer - grow something. I think if everyone played some part, however small, in growing their own food - even a jalepeno plant in a small pot (I've 2 of these on the balcony of my 650 sq. ft. apt.), that we would appreciate what we eat that much more. It would go a long way to fighting obesity, inhumane treatment of animals, and promoting local agriculture.

By HalJordan on 6/11/2010 3:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
So, what you are saying is: "Embrace the new, but not at the expense of the old." Right? I can get behind that, and I am definitely not the "touchy-feely" type. Odd that you would mention Jalopeno plants, as I just started to grow two of my own, keep your fingers crossed for me, I don't have much of a green thumb. If all goes well, I'm planning on tomatoes next.

I believe we can inspire more people to shift their patterns based on their pocketbook, rather than ethics alone.

By clovell on 6/14/2010 10:18:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'll keep em crossed for you. I started some seeds back at the end of March, and now I've got 2 Jalepenos, 1 Banana Pepper, 1 California Wonder Bell Pepper, 1 Mariachi Hybrid Pepper, 2 Roma Tomatoes, 1 Tomatillo, and 1 Viva Italia plant - plus a handful of Herbs out on my balcony.

I've really enjoyed it. Starting inside from seeds was a lot of trial & error, but it gave me something to do in those last winter months.

You should give tomatoes a try. Not sure where you live, or if you plan on planting them in the ground (mine are all in pots), but you might start with a determinate species (only grows to a certain length, rather than a continuously long vine). My Romas grew pretty fast (germinated quicker than the Viva Italias), but the Viva Italias can make do with less water (which is helpful if you sometimes forget to water).

By Ammohunt on 6/11/2010 3:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
You lost me at "inhumane treatment of animals" top of the food chain, top of the food chain.

Viruses and the machines from the Matrix feed off of people.

By SPOOFE on 6/13/2010 12:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
You lost me at "inhumane treatment of animals"

Well, clearly you read almost the entirety of his post to get to that part, so he didn't really lose you, did he? :D

By clovell on 6/14/2010 10:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, a lot of that stuff is really hard to believe until you read up on it or watch a documentary. It's disgusting, though - especially the cattle lots in West Texas & New Mexico.




By Spuke on 6/11/10, Rating: 0







By aegisofrime on 6/11/2010 9:17:01 PM , Rating: 1
I would like some clarification on this part

"it creates a barrier between the residents and one of their most important daily activities"

Why is this important? I ask because I live in Singapore, and without question, all of our food is trucked, shipped or flown in. I think we get along fine without seeing some of our food grown in local farmland.

By clovell on 6/14/2010 10:28:07 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know much about Singapore, but here in America, food is processed, fast, and cheap. Most people around here eat with a casual abandon, without ever understanding what's on their plate.

Don't get me wrong - I'd stop at McDonald's before I skipped a meal, but given the choice, I'd choose something different. Call me crazy, but I just think that eating is an intimate activity - that there's a right way and a wrong way to raise and slaughter animals - that there's a certain level of respect that everyone should have for their food that gets lost in the shuffle of modern agriculture.














By shin0bi272 on 6/12/2010 3:29:31 AM , Rating: 2
I would like to point out that the maize you eat (either on or off the cob) this summer is a genetically engineered product that started out as a grass about ankle high or so and was bred to be the food we eat today through hundreds of years of cultivation. There is also another newer version that students at the university of nebraska are working on to make a more disease resistant version of the stuff because once one stalk goes bad to fungus or rust or beetles there's a good possibility that that entire acre will get infected in a matter of days. So please dont ignore the fact that science has always played a role in food production and pass it off as a "mixed blessing".

One other thing, Organic is BS. A study out of England back in 08 said that they studied the "organic" vs regular food for 50 years and they concluded that organic is nothing more than a label when it comes to the health benefits. In other words its hogwash! Youre paying more money for something that essentially is no better or worse for you than the standard stuff we all bought for years. Taste might be different depending on the type of organic and the type of food youre talking about but for the nutritional value there is no difference. Sorry to burst your bubble bub.

By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/2010 6:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe it's the nutritional value that makes organic

By chemist1 on 6/14/2010 4:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
That British article wasn't a study, it was a review article -- a summary of other published work. It focused principally on vitamin and mineral content, and came to conclusions consistent with that of another large review [Zhao X, et al. (2006), HortTechnology, Vol. 16, No. 3 pp. 449-456,] -- that the vitamin and mineral content of organic and conventionally grown produce is similar. HOWEVER, Zhao also reviewed, in detail, numerous studies assessing phytochemical content (the British study did as well but not, it seemed, as thoroughly). Zhao found that, while more work needs to be done, "the evidence overall seems in favor of enhancement of phytochemical content in organically grown produce." And it's the phytochemicals (e.g., flavinoids) that are thought to provide much of the health-enhancing benefits of fruits and vegetables. Here's more on this from wikipedia (

"The FiBL Institute has been investigating the differences at over 200 farms. It states that "organic products stand out as having higher levels of secondary plant compounds and vitamin C. In the case of milk and meat, the fatty acid profile is often better from a nutritional point of view. As far as carbohydrates and minerals, organic products are no different from conventional products. However, in regard to undesirables such as nitrate and pesticide residues, organic products have a clear advantage. A £12m EU-funded investigation into the difference between organic and ordinary farming published in 2007 found that organic foods have more nutritional value.[43] A recent study found that organically grown produce has double the flavonoids, an important antioxidant.[44]. A 2007 study found that organically grown kiwifruit had more antioxidants than conventional kiwifruit.[45]"

In addition, organic produce may be chemically safer. Some chemical fertilizers are made from industrial waste, and thus contain high levels of cadmium. And, of course, there's the issue of pesticides.




By raf11 on 6/11/2010 7:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that a very small fraction of people that are making the argument that climate change is a myth today, wouldn't be doing so if the idea wasn't fueled by a political party/ideology. Much in the same way that I believe a fraction of a percent of people would be making the argument that evolution is a myth, if it wasn't fueled by an underlying religious belief.

It seems people will often dismiss factual information to fit their personal beliefs, instead of modifying their personal beliefs to align with factual information.

By raf11 on 6/11/2010 10:44:40 PM , Rating: 3
I was referring to man-made climate change.

My girlfriend's grandfather is a die-hard republican (Disclaimer: I have nothing against those who are conservative, just pointing out how this opinion exists mostly within a specific party) - he commonly opposes the idea of man-made climate change, and uses different references concerning Al Gore this and that as if it eliminates the entire consensus of the scientific community for the last 20 years. A common political tactic is to demonize a single entity that holds the same view, and then paint the entire body that holds that view as being the same. It doesn't logically make sense.

Only a blockhead would actually claim that proponents of this theory aren't the ones with the political ideological agenda.

Even if a political party was using climate change as a giant wealth redistribution scheme (Which is a point I don't necessarily agree with) - how can you ignore the consensus of the scientific community, of all the universities, experts, etc - and favor the opinion of those who are aligned with your own political beliefs (Who are not authorities on the subject)?

With your nearly 3,700+ posts and outspoken and extremist view, I'm starting to think you are hired by DailyTech to increase ad revenue. Since your provocative comments incur further posts, this increases page views and thus ad revenue. Otherwise, I don't see why you would spend so much time spreading your opinion when the majority of users don't agree with you (As displayed with your average down-rating) and you have been repeatedly proven wrong. Why spend all this time on DailyTech posting, for nothing?

By raf11 on 6/11/2010 11:12:58 PM , Rating: 3
This will be my last reply to you, as I realize any attempt to counter anything you say is pointless, and just a waste of time.

So if a "majority" of scientist agree on something, it's true.

If that something happens to be their field, and it's based on studied facts and testing, then yes, exactly. At least until legitimate evidence from the science community proves otherwise. I don't even see how you could argue against that.

If a "majority" of raters disagree with me, I'm an extremist paid Daily Tech mole?

No, the above was suggested because day in and day out you argue with posters and are continually proven wrong. When they prove you wrong, you label it "leftist" and disagree with it usually solely based on the fact that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be on the left (even several times in your last post). The fact that I don't believe a person could do this all day, every day without being paid for it is why I made that suggestion. If you aren't receiving some type of compensation for it, then that truly makes the situation entirely more pathetic.

You seem to be very hung up on majorities. Are you a very insecure person?

Funny, since you several times try to convince yourself that you are in the majority with your views when it supports your argument, which is why I pointed it out.

Quote from you on 5/17
The country IS "far right". It was founded on "far right" principles. And the majority of the country when polled, identify themselves as "far right".

And here is just one of the many posts from you that displays your extremism, from 5/28
Or maybe I should support the idea. That way when the rest of us finally snap from paying taxes for everyone else's EV car, it will be really easy to identify the enemy. Simply drag anyone out of an EV you find, kicking and screaming, and put a bullet in their face .

By ShaolinSoccer on 6/12/2010 12:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
Climate Change research is a huge pile of money just waiting to be grabbed. It pays for itself.

lol I remember an article in Parade about "hot jobs" and one was 'anything to do with global warming'...

just wanted to throw that out there...

By AEvangel on 6/14/2010 1:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
You also have to remember back in the 70's it was the idea of Global cooling and their was this myth of a huge overwhelming majority of scientist in favor of that theory as well.

Personally, I would rather have global warming since that is much less of an overall threat to humanity then Global cooling since the last time we had a global cooling some 20k years ago everything north of Africa and Mexico was under ice.

I agree with climate change you have to be an idiot not to, I just don't believe in the man made concept since this is the latest fad of the scientific community(who love the grant $$ to do these studies) to come along.

By shin0bi272 on 6/12/2010 3:33:30 AM , Rating: 3
Actually in the US belief in man made global warming is down to 20% of the population according to a poll I saw about 3 months ago. Once the scientist that worked for the UN came out and admitted that the emails that were hacked were true and that there had been no appreciable warming since 1995 the belief in it sort of dropped out. Still hasnt stopped people from pushing a "green economy" or "going green" despite the laws of physics and thermodynamics and the economics of scale there are still zealots out there pushing for it... Barry Obama being one of them.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2010 6:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. Raf believes that scientific majority = population majority. So good luck convincing him that most American's actually CAN make their own opinions on something once they are informed enough about it.

Climategate opened our eyes, and confirmed a lot of suspicions. These aren't good men and women just doing a job. These are people HIGHLY motivated to push an agenda.

Now the media and several sources, based on East Anglia's own laughable "investigation", would like you to believe the "science was solid" but the people doing the science were flawed. I mean, honestly, who's buying that??

By just4U on 6/13/2010 12:03:46 AM , Rating: 2
The beauty of the internet. The masses in western civilization have more information at their fingertips then world leaders and thinkers of less then 100 years ago.

Regardless, the scientific majority only appears to agree on the fact that the world is warming up. Jury seems to be out on cause and effect. Or even if such warming will hurt us or be benifitial. Afterall, warming trends have meant massive growth for our planet in the past.







