Cost of Food - Even the Sky is Not the Limit (beach, raising)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are extreme! I assume you are young. Agenda 21 must sound great to such an idealist.
I just read yesterday that much of the fish imported from Vietnam and China is fed animal poop. Salmonella is a growing concern.
I'm 65 and my husband is 67. Perhaps we're young compared to you - but I don't think so.
And if you think Florida is all swampland and crocodiles - then you are just ignorant IMO (or perhaps you haven't traveled widely). Robyn
P.S. Perhaps you fixate on human poop because it's very prevalent on the streets of some cities in northern California (like San Francisco).
I'm 65 and my husband is 67. Perhaps we're young compared to you - but I don't think so.
And if you think Florida is all swampland and crocodiles - then you are just ignorant IMO (or perhaps you haven't traveled widely). Robyn
P.S. Perhaps you fixate on human poop because it's very prevalent on the streets of some cities in northern California (like San Francisco).
Wow, that was childish. You're the controlling type.
I grew up in the midwest and CA, so I know little about your state. You could have educated me, instead of using grade school banter.
The telling thing was to look at the impact of pesticide on life expectancy in Africa during the 70's and early 80's. The use of pesticides increased the risk of cancer and caused a decrease in life expectancy. Not a good thing and there were those agains the use of pesticide. Another interesting thing was the use of pesiticides in Africa during the 70's and 80's. It had a dramatic impact on food production and minimizing starvation and malnutrition. On the one hand it had the side effect of creating health issues than were negative on life expectancy and on the other hand it increased food production and decreased the amount of malnutrition. What was the net effect? A big jump in life expectancy so take your pick. Live longer but perhaps die of cancer or continue to die at a younger age. Pesticide might have added 25 years and taken away 5 but it was a net gain.
All of us have certain "eye-opening" experiences in this life. One of mine came when I was in high school. We had a class called "Ecology" which was a science class. DDT and insecticides are frequently treated as absolute evils by some in the environmental movement. Than I read about some of the things that had been done with DDT. In the 1940's, the area now presently known as the country of Sri Lanka had a terrible problem with malaria. Malaria is spread by mosquitoes and causes high fevers. A significant percentage of people who get it die. Deaths are most common among young children. Than, a decision was made to spray the island heavily with DDT. Not just the death rate from malaria, but the overall death rate on the island dropped by something like one-third. DDT was like a deliverance to these people. It also kept many American sailors and soldiers from getting deathly ill as well.
DDT has done a lot of harm environmentally. However, what is typically left out of the equation is the vast amount of good its done as well. There are many restrictions today on its use, but its interesting its not totally banned. It may still be used as long as the goal is to prevent disease and suffering rather than simply increase crop production.
I don't care for the simplistic way that many people react towards pesticides and chemicals. I get my lawn chemically treated every year. Virtually every neighbor I have does the same. Our yards are prettier because of them.
All of us have certain "eye-opening" experiences in this life. One of mine came when I was in high school. We had a class called "Ecology" which was a science class. DDT and insecticides are frequently treated as absolute evils by some in the environmental movement. Than I read about some of the things that had been done with DDT. In the 1940's, the area now presently known as the country of Sri Lanka had a terrible problem with malaria. Malaria is spread by mosquitoes and causes high fevers. A significant percentage of people who get it die. Deaths are most common among young children. Than, a decision was made to spray the island heavily with DDT. Not just the death rate from malaria, but the overall death rate on the island dropped by something like one-third. DDT was like a deliverance to these people. It also kept many American sailors and soldiers from getting deathly ill as well.
DDT has done a lot of harm environmentally. However, what is typically left out of the equation is the vast amount of good its done as well. There are many restrictions today on its use, but its interesting its not totally banned. It may still be used as long as the goal is to prevent disease and suffering rather than simply increase crop production.
I don't care for the simplistic way that many people react towards pesticides and chemicals. I get my lawn chemically treated every year. Virtually every neighbor I have does the same. Our yards are prettier because of them.
My teaching at the time was based on studies similar to the one you mentioned and others. In fact the one you mentioned may have been part of the research I was using. It certainly was an eye opener to me when I was first exposed to the reality. It is all part of a bigger picture and another more controversial topic of how many people can the planet sustain and at what cost. This thread is part of the discussion and that is the role of free markets in controlling population growth. It is currently supply/demand with the ability to pay being such a major determiner of food allocation.
Wow, that was childish. You're the controlling type.
I grew up in the midwest and CA, so I know little about your state. You could have educated me, instead of using grade school banter.
How old are you? Travel if you want to educate yourself <smile> (although perhaps I sound like your mother). Come on down here to Florida. It's a relatively cheap place to travel - especially in the non-prime tourist parts of the state during non-high season (or anywhere in the state during low season). And you can learn a lot about food production. Next weekend is our largest local county fair - the Jacksonville Agricultural Fair. We get to see all kinds of cattle - pigs - goats - sheep - poultry - etc. You can buy a prize bull if you want to .
I've lived in Florida for 40+ years and have been to California on about 10-12 trips during that period. All parts of the state - from north to south. Very urban to very rural. I think California is a swell food producing state - like Florida (although both Florida and California need states like Iowa to provide us with grain). And - believe it or not - one place where I would be very concerned about getting salmonella or similar in California is at the cutesy Ferry Market in San Francisco. A few years ago - we walked from our hotel - Four Seasons - to the Ferry Market. Maybe 1/4 mile. But fall down drunks littered the street. Along with human excrement and vomit. If one is a tourist - and takes an inadvertent step - and tries to clean a shoe - then your hands may be contaminated when you go to the market and handle some produce. And - if you're one of those bums - and go to the market - then - if you handle produce - you may contaminate things as well.
BTW - I don't know what "controlling" means. Robyn
How old are you? Travel if you want to educate yourself <smile> (although perhaps I sound like your mother). Come on down here to Florida. It's a relatively cheap place to travel - especially in the non-prime tourist parts of the state during non-high season (or anywhere in the state during low season). And you can learn a lot about food production. Next weekend is our largest local county fair - the Jacksonville Agricultural Fair. We get to see all kinds of cattle - pigs - goats - sheep - poultry - etc. You can buy a prize bull if you want to .
I've lived in Florida for 40+ years and have been to California on about 10-12 trips during that period. All parts of the state - from north to south. Very urban to very rural. I think California is a swell food producing state - like Florida (although both Florida and California need states like Iowa to provide us with grain). And - believe it or not - one place where I would be very concerned about getting salmonella or similar in California is at the cutesy Ferry Market in San Francisco. A few years ago - we walked from our hotel - Four Seasons - to the Ferry Market. Maybe 1/4 mile. But fall down drunks littered the street. Along with human excrement and vomit. If one is a tourist - and takes an inadvertent step - and tries to clean a shoe - then your hands may be contaminated when you go to the market and handle some produce. And - if you're one of those bums - and go to the market - then - if you handle produce - you may contaminate things as well.
BTW - I don't know what "controlling" means. Robyn
All of us have certain "eye-opening" experiences in this life. One of mine came when I was in high school. We had a class called "Ecology" which was a science class. DDT and insecticides are frequently treated as absolute evils by some in the environmental movement. Than I read about some of the things that had been done with DDT. In the 1940's, the area now presently known as the country of Sri Lanka had a terrible problem with malaria. Malaria is spread by mosquitoes and causes high fevers. A significant percentage of people who get it die. Deaths are most common among young children. Than, a decision was made to spray the island heavily with DDT. Not just the death rate from malaria, but the overall death rate on the island dropped by something like one-third. DDT was like a deliverance to these people. It also kept many American sailors and soldiers from getting deathly ill as well.
DDT has done a lot of harm environmentally. However, what is typically left out of the equation is the vast amount of good its done as well. There are many restrictions today on its use, but its interesting its not totally banned. It may still be used as long as the goal is to prevent disease and suffering rather than simply increase crop production.
I don't care for the simplistic way that many people react towards pesticides and chemicals. I get my lawn chemically treated every year. Virtually every neighbor I have does the same. Our yards are prettier because of them.
My experience was learning that DDT was still showing up in breast milk even though it was officially banned in the US in 1972. Not too cool since I breast fed all three of my children.
As for South Africa in September 2012:
The levels proved to be unacceptably high in the villages sprayed. They were well over (100 times greater) the highest daily dosage recommended by WHO. In once case they measured the highest known level of DDT in breast milk ever, more than 300 times higher than the level allowed in cow's milk. DDT has been associated with diagnoses such as breast cancer, diabetes, impaired sperm quality, spontaneous abortions, and neurological disorders in children. In the region where the measurements were carried out, malformed genitalia among boys was significantly more common in areas treated with DDT compared with untreated area. High levels of DDT in breast milk in mothers living in malaria-stricken villages in South Africa
Granted, most of the boomers would have been exposed to an unmeasurable amount of DDT while children. And of course, children are at most risk. Unlike adults (especially the elderly) their cells are rapidly dividing.
It is the major reason I am not particularly concerned about eating processed foods or other "unhealthy" foods. My cells are dividing much more slowly and if there is any impact of eating nonorganic foods, it will be minimum. OTOH, I would do anything to protect the most vulnerable, including feeding the little ones "organic" food.
They don't want science; they thing it's part of evil big business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robyn55
Why is it better for the planet? Especially if you have to use 2 or 3 times as much land to produce the same amount of food (as a result of no fertilizers - produce destroyed by bugs - no GMO products with much higher yields - etc.)? There is also a small but growing anti-locavore movement:
Specialization of occupation and trade were the two phenomena that originall created civilization. The locavores wish to ultimately eliminate both. They want, they think, a world of farmers who are selling excess product but are on their little farmettes (think of a subdivision) living in an ancient world. Of course, they couldn't survive in that world but they think it would be paradise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl
"It is also a morality tale about our relationship to the land that sustains us—a lesson we ignore at our peril."—Ken Burns
They think that it's more moral to eschew technology.
I am in favor of providing decent sanitation facilities for people who work outside. And not allowing domestic animals to poop anywhere except *inside* their owners' homes (for some reason - pet owners think it's perfectly OK to have their pets defecate on the property of other people). As for wild animals - not much we can do about the smaller ones (although we can fence out larger ones in some cases). Robyn
Now you're going off on a silly hobby horse. If nothing else, I guarantee that mice and other small animals are defecating all over your property. You're still alive.
Well, how about that! I buy my bananas almost ready to eat, but they still last a long time. So, lack of ethylene is the reason. Guess that's why they're called "organic."
So how old are these young volunteers? And why don't they get paid? I can see volunteers in a community garden - not when someone's selling stuff. It would probably be a violation of wage and hour laws in Florida.
I guess it's not down in FLA (?) but in New England and the Midwest there is a movement gaining momentum of young people (20s, 30s) who are getting into permaculture and small scale farming as an alternative to Big Ag. Some are in degree programs like at our state university where the permaculture program started out with maybe a dozen students and has quickly grown to 75.
These young folks are learning methods of farming that restore and preserve the land, growing food with quality seed (non-GMO) and building viable local economies. The students volunteer to work on local farms ("in the field" so to speak) as part of their education. Others, who did not go to college or who did and got an increasingly useless degree, have ditched their track for organic farming. Some, who have money, are buying land and starting up small farming operations growing produce year-round and also cultivating wheat. Small local enterprises are building communities around growing food. All over New England at farmers markets you see the young proprietors and their young families. It's great to see and great for our local economies (spinning off quality restaurants, bakeries, apiaries, and many craft industries).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
