is Organic food better

[beefy]

Hi all new here.
Well said Johnboy in my humble opinion you are just about on the money.All I would add to what you have said is that if chemicals are used properly ie at the right strength, rates ,applied properly and any witholding times adhered to there will be no problems.

[Jenny Green]

Hello Johnboy

You express my sentiments better than I can.

What surprises me is the deafening silence from the pro- organic worshipers on this forum. Perhaps pragmatism is catching!!!

Best wishes

Barney

I assume you're referring to me in that crowd Barney. I haven't joined in this discussion because a) I haven't had time to listen to the programme, b) neither do I have time to indulge in lengthy debates c) I'm sick and tired of the derogatory comments posted about people who espouse organic methods (eg. organic 'worshippers'), d) as usual the anti-organic posters are making unsubstantiated claims about what the organic growers profess (please tell me Johnboy where's that debate on rotovators, for example? Or peat? And where is the myth and legend? Rotovators aren't even prohibited in organic growing anyway!) e) all views are thoroughly entrenched, so what's the point?

[Johnboy]

Dear Jenny,
Had you listened to the programme then you would understand what I have been saying.
Back on the very original forum which is probably five years ago there was a tremendous battle by those who are against the use of rotavators. The discussion went on at very great length.
Are you trying to tell me that you do not remember the Anti Peat debate 'cos it has been going on and on for again at least five years or a lot longer.
I suppose you are going to say that the SA never talk about Pesticides and how evil they are and when they do, half the time, they mean Herbicides or Molluscicides. The SA class all chemicals Pesticides because it suits their cause it sounds worse.
They openly tell everybody that they are the people who farm with the environment in mind and that there is more wildlife on Organic Farms. It simply isn't true. They take more land to produce less food which in the main must be used quickly because it will not store. They have a larger Carbon Footprint than Conventional Farms.
What the SA fail to tell people is that organic commercial growers use pesticides and other chemicals that have been approved by them.
Organic growers use more chemicals than I do.
They have sucked a lot of people in to buying more organic food at greater cost to no benefit and considering that the vast majority is imported they are not supporting British Farming as they should.
Please at least try and listen to the programme as it may open even your eyes.
Organic is very fast becoming known as another word for Con.
The founding fathers of the organic organizations I feel would be totally appalled with the situation existing today.
JB.

[richard p]

hi jenny i too havnt responded , cos i havent heard the programme, im not going to try to find it , its a fair bet that it was made to support one view or the other and is not a well informed presentation of both sides of the argument.

there is little point in indulging in yet another organic debate here , the previous posts from jb for example are typical of the standard we can expect,

it appears to me that this thread has been kept alive by repeated posts trying to start another argument. i aint got time to play, sorry jb

[Jenny Green]

Dear Jenny,
Had you listened to the programme then you would understand what I have been saying.
Back on the very original forum which is probably five years ago there was a tremendous battle by those who are against the use of rotavators. The discussion went on at very great length.
Are you trying to tell me that you do not remember the Anti Peat debate 'cos it has been going on and on for again at least five years or a lot longer.
I suppose you are going to say that the SA never talk about Pesticides and how evil they are and when they do, half the time, they mean Herbicides or Molluscicides. The SA class all chemicals Pesticides because it suits their cause it sounds worse.
They openly tell everybody that they are the people who farm with the environment in mind and that there is more wildlife on Organic Farms. It simply isn't true. They take more land to produce less food which in the main must be used quickly because it will not store. They have a larger Carbon Footprint than Conventional Farms.
What the SA fail to tell people is that organic commercial growers use pesticides and other chemicals that have been approved by them.
Organic growers use more chemicals than I do.
They have sucked a lot of people in to buying more organic food at greater cost to no benefit and considering that the vast majority is imported they are not supporting British Farming as they should.
Please at least try and listen to the programme as it may open even your eyes.
Organic is very fast becoming known as another word for Con.
The founding fathers of the organic organizations I feel would be totally appalled with the situation existing today.
JB.

If you can actually substantiate anything you've said here I'll be happy to debate with you. I've done a search of the whole forum with 'peat' as a keyword and there simply isn't a debate on anti-peat. You are mistaken. Neither do I recall any debate on the use of rotovators (which, as I have already pointed out, are nothing to do with organic growing or not anyway) and as you know I've been on here at least as long as you.
Please provide evidence for your arguments if you expect to be taken seriously. I'm not interested in getting involved in the slanging match you and other anti-organic posters are obviously after here.

[TonyF]

When I started to subscribe to KG's a few years ago I always thought of it - broadly - as part of the organic movement and frequently saw the magazine as extolling organic growing -not the same style as Lawrence Hill for sure, but a modern organic movement, more in tune with today's gardeners and methods. Arguably, they've moved away from that lately but things do change, that's life.

I've been vaguely aware of HDRA for years and have dropped in and out of membership, depending on other committments and can even remember when HDRA was in Essex. I have no idea how Hill would see the new, super glossy HDRA and it's high business attitude to things - I still belong but only to support the Seed Library really and feel that they have also sort of lost the organic 'ethos' and become far too 'high end' for practical gardening purposes.

I can't see the point of the obviously strongly held views expressed here against the Soil Association from the large or kitchen gardening movement, it seems to me like selective editing of the information on the programme which I have listened to.

Do people who are so vehement about organics want to argue the point in the magazine with - say - Bob Flowerdew? Do their views extend to recycling also because that was also part of Hill's philosophy? Or is it the larger scale 'organic movement' that they really object to?

I live in a rural part of France where there is a real organic movement, mainly because many of the local farmers haven't moved forward too much in production terms - every year you see fields with heaps of manure ready to be spread - sure they use chemicals but many of the farmers are also vendors and you can buy all shapes and sizes of locally produced food. People here buy an eclectic mix of brought in food from supermarkets but also locally produced fruit, veg and meat and many people, myself included, have large and very productive potagers.

At least I can control what happens in my garden but I don't incur air miles, I choose as far as possible to buy locally sourced food which not only maintains farmers/producers incomes but also does something small to help the planet.

Perhaps we should be talking locally produced without chemicals rather than 'the organic movement' which seems to be getting many gardeners so agitated.

Except of course, those of us who believe in it as a lifesyle choice.

[Allan]

I have refrained from saying anything about the material of the broadcast but feel that now is the time to say a few words.
First let me point out to Jenny Green that as far as I know with the introduction of the new form of Forum the topics that Jhnboy referred to would no longer be available hence your criticism is invalid.
I am very glad that there has been a good number of members who availed themselves of the BBC programme. It is as good as one can get in presenting the topic in an impartial but authentic way
My personal opinion is thsat organic material is very valuable to the gardener as it has been over the ages but there are no grounds whatsoever to eschew the use of chemicals as well if it is appropriate to achieve the desired result.
I note that the Organic movement is now trying to modify its stance by the use of "buzz-words" such as local, food miles etc but none of these can be used indiscriminately, As the programme pointed out you have to judge each case on its merits, in other words pragmatically.
Allan

[richard p]

try the following link, it is only a very brief intro to this doctor's work but her books are easily available and delve deeply into environmental toxins and their effects on human health


http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/s ... 0Paula.pdf

[beefy]

try the following link, it is only a very brief intro to this doctor's work but her books are easily available and delve deeply into environmental toxins and their effects on human health


http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/s ... 0Paula.pdf

Seems very short on hard facts and plenty of scare tactics but no actual facts to back it up.The SA isn't very likely to put anything on its website thats going to go against its own ideas are they now?
Notice the famous phrase "trust your instincts" crops up in the text .

[Jenny Green]

First let me point out to Jenny Green that as far as I know with the introduction of the new form of Forum the topics that Jhnboy referred to would no longer be available hence your criticism is invalid.

Allan

And let me point out to you Allan, that Johnboy wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that you do not remember the Anti Peat debate 'cos it has been going on and on for again at least five years or a lot longer.
Considering this forum in its current format has posts dating back to 2005 and I cannot find a single reference to an anti-peat debate, it can hardly be said that 'it's been going on and on for at least five years'. Had Johnboy said the debate was more than two years ago it might make some sense, as he did when referring to the anti-rotovator debate (though that comment was largely irrelevant too, though neither you nor he seem to be willing to admit that). Hence your criticism is invalid.
If either of you are able to point me to any post about anti-peat in the last two years, or indeed anything to back up your assertions in general I will be happy to discuss the issues.

[richard p]

beefy wrote in reference to a link i posted

""Seems very short on hard facts and plenty of scare tactics but no actual facts to back it up"

in the origional post i wrote

"it is only a very brief intro to this doctor's work but her books are easily available "

it saddens me that you apparently dismiss the concept that chemicals in the environment may be harming human health just because the article was on the SA website with no attempt to read the books i refered too which give the arguments and facts which you complain arnt in the brief article on the website

[alan refail]

The original question was "Is Organic food better?" It rather depends what you mean by better - more nutritious? less contaminated? better for the environment? better for animal welfare?
Now that the discussion has come down to the uses and potential dangers of chemicals in the environment, perhaps I could recomend some reading - Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. Out of date, many of you will say; but aldrin, dieldrin, DDT et al were "safe" until proven otherwise.
And since we will also get objections from those who suggest we all place our faith in the Food Standards Authority and the Pesticides Safety Directorate, let's remember that these also have their own agendas, being government-linked bodies, scientists or not.
Was it not a government body, and its scientists, who not so very long ago suggested that, in the interests of (cheap) food production, it would be a good idea for farmers to feed their cattle on processed diseased sheep carcases?
Food for thought.

Alan

[Mr Potato Head]

In short - Yes.

The longer version is - Yes, except it's a little bit more expensive if you buy it in a supermarket.

What's the problem folks?

[Cider Boys]

Dear Jenny

It’s good to hear from you again and I do apologise if my words were taken as derogatory, they were not meant to be, really. However you must agree that they did seem to have the desired effect on the deafening silence!

I also admit for a brief moment it did, erroneously, occur to me that you might also be having the same techno problems as me in getting to hear the programme.

Best wishes

Barney

[beefy]

The original question was "Is Organic food better?" It rather depends what you mean by better - more nutritious? less contaminated? better for the environment? better for animal welfare?
Now that the discussion has come down to the uses and potential dangers of chemicals in the environment, perhaps I could recomend some reading - Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. Out of date, many of you will say; but aldrin, dieldrin, DDT et al were "safe" until proven otherwise.
And since we will also get objections from those who suggest we all place our faith in the Food Standards Authority and the Pesticides Safety Directorate, let's remember that these also have their own agendas, being government-linked bodies, scientists or not.
Was it not a government body, and its scientists, who not so very long ago suggested that, in the interests of (cheap) food production, it would be a good idea for farmers to feed their cattle on processed diseased sheep carcases?
Food for thought.

Alan

So we close all the chemical factories clear the shelves in the chemists .No flu jabs for the elderly, no asthma inhaler for people,you might as well close the hospitals as well.All of a sudden how many thousand people on the dole with nothing to do, no money, the list goes on.
You have reintroduced poverty to the country which will soon be followed by disease - but no drugs to treat it.
What happened in the past with chemicals etc is not a good enough reason to ban them for the future.If thats the future you want fine but I'll borrow the SA's tag line and trust my instincts.