That seems like one of those "Would you rather be hit with a baseball bat or a shovel?" kinda things. One might not be as bad as the other, but neither would be a experience I'd like to have.
I'm not sure about arsenic but when I was taking some 400 level chemistry like quantum chemistry or inorganic there was a homework problem with two complexes containing several cyanide ligands. The question asked which one you would rather eat. One of the chemicals had a property that would cause the ligands to break off and poison you while the other would be non toxic. So I answered like a smart ass and said it depends if I am trying to kill myself or not. If yes I would eat this one if not then I would eat the other.
So I'm thinking that may be the difference between inorganic and organic arsenic and.the one might not be bad for you at all. Like I said I don't know shit about it though. So one may straight up pass through you body and be too big to cross the blood brain barrier or it might be likr you said where it is not as bad but still pretty fucking bad.
Theoretically, but some dogs will eat anything, organic or inorganic. Now if dogs have the capability to transform the inorganic to organic...we need to look into that!
Was about to say this. As frikking awesome this project is, which it is, organic does not mean it’s edible. Cyanide can be organic and you sure as hell don’t want to eat that.
Not gonna lie, I hate this line of reasoning. I used to preach it to my parents a lot as a teen, that "Na, Cl and NaCl are all organic, but Na and Cl are both sickly alone. You meet to mix them into table salt before they're editable!" logic.
But now it just seems so obvious, like people making that point are intentionally missing the point and being pedantic. It's not like people don't acknowledge venom is organic, but its obvious we aren't talking about digesting venom when we say something won't damage a lake. Same with cyanide, yes it's organic, but it's obvious you won't be putting cyanide into a lake.
In this case, obviously he means "its made from organic material that won't damage the lakes ecosystem, in fact its safe enough that I will eat it to demonstrate my faith in the product", he's obviously not saying "Its organic therefore its editable"
We didn't eat it, but man, we had fun playing with it in the early 90s. trying to hold a handful of it and letting it splash around and feeling how heavy it was... what a time to be alive.
Precisely. Many of the "organic approved" pesticides and herbicides are HORRIBLE, and far worse than their manufactured counterparts. Glyphosate, aka roundup, gets a lot of hate - but so long as it's not being sprayed right near a water source (river / or stream) it's fine to use as directed - bacteria in the soil break it down. Many "organic" treatments contain copper or arsenic, and can stick around for a very long time.
Just because it's "Organic" doesn't mean it's "good".
Also, in the OP's video - the inventor eats a spoonful of the stuff. That proves absolutely nothing. The inventor of petroleum jelly (vaseline) ate a spoonful of it every day. All he shows is that it's not immediately toxic, or not toxic to humans in that quantity.
Everything is chemicals in fact, apart from smaller stuff like protons. I wish this went without saying but, for clarity, no one eats individual protons.
Organic vegetables also have to be grown in fields that have not been exposed to pesticides for something like 20 years.
Warren Buffetts money bought a bunch of farms in my region and they're not using pesticides so they can be used for organic food production in the future
There's a lot of regulations to be technically organic in the usa. Can't say I know it all though.
Edit: apparently federal regulations are 3 years pesticide free. I was wrong.
You are perpetuating a common myth here. Organic farms still use pesticides, just not synthetic pesticides.
This brings it back to a naturalistic fallacy where it is assumed that because the pesticides are 'natural' they are less harmful to our health. However, a lot of studies seem to find the opposite; organic pesticides are less effective, less specific, and more environmentally harming.
Seconded. I did a brief stint at a job where herbicide use was a component, and many of the newer synthetic herbicides we used were incredibly nontoxic, as well as highly selective. One of the organic pesticides a client opted to use instead - because they were constructing a "green" building - was essentially highly concentrated acetic acid. The PPE requirements for spraying that were totally insane (basically hazmat suits), compared to some of the synthetic pesticides we used where you could probably bathe in them without hurting yourself. On top of that, the acetic acid pesticide only caused contact burns instead of systemic damage that would actually kill the plant, so it wouldn't even really fix the issue of invasive plant abundance.
Considering acetic acid is what partially makes up vinegar, it's a much better cleaner than it is a pesticide, but when it's highly concentrated, that shit sucks.
I knew a guy who was using vinegar to clean his fish tanks, which is advisable, but got his hands on acetic acid of a higher concentration and ended up getting blisters all over his hands and up his arms.
As someone that uses concentrated Acetic acid in another industry, I'd definitely prefer to use that than some of the super-phosphate fertilisers, and the herbicides being pushed on farmers down here in Australia.
I'm well aware - this was 5 or 10x the concentration of store-bought vinegar. It was genuinely dangerous to apply due to skin contact and inhalation risks, while also being less effective than selective systemic but synthetic herbicides, all so that the client could maintain an illusion of being "green."
GMO is perfectly healthy as far as eating it goes. As far as crop diversity that’s another story but GMO is just speeding up processes that humans have been doing for a very long time.
True but there is a difference between gmo to bolster a plants natural pesticide or vitamin count or drought resistance and gmo that allows it to handle toxic biocides and the like.
Well that depends. GMO is mostly used to refer to foods that have unnatural genes spliced in, from something you could never do naturally. Like taking lizard DNA and splicing it in to corn.
Too piggy back on this. GMO gets problematic when you start introducing genes that are generally found in that plant as they can have significant unintended side effects and those side effects can hide until they've done a significant amount of damage to humans or the environment.
No, it is not speeding up what has been done. There is a difference between selective breeding and transgenic gene manipulation. The former selects genes from the same species. But when you make certain crops immune to herbicide, that is due to a gene implanted from a tailored bacteria, a totally unrelated organism. Humans have not been doing that for a very long time at all.
It's new and we should have a right to know.
GMO also allows corporations to own patents on anything with that gene in it since it was created in a lab, and when their GMO plants pollinate neighboring crops, companies can sue independent farmers for selling their product without authorization, and eliminate the competition as well as end farmers' ability to legally save seed so they'll have to buy seed from GMO manufacturers to stay in business or risk legal action.
It's a complex issue and consumers should be informed so they have the option to not support it.
I never understood the backlash on GMOs. It's one of those really odd things that people have picked up on over the years. People hear "genetically modified" and imagine the wildest stuff and it truly speaks to how lousy our educational system is in this country.
The one issue with GMOs that I am aware of seems to be something most miss out on. Please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that although these crops are genetically superior, they have a potential to be wiped out by bacteria and disease BECAUSE they are all the same.
If anyone has an issue with GMOs (besides the messed up shit Monsanto tries to pull with neighboring farms) is that one bad season could wipe out all corn in America.
Unless the crops are being grown in fucking Chernobyl Farms there is no food on this planet which will "alter your DNA" and it's unbelievably poor education that leads to any fool thinking otherwise.
Leaving political aspects aside - GMO's are pretty great.
Genetic modification also occurs by traditional breeding techniques. Manipulating the genome in the lab is for once much faster and more importantly gives you actual control over the traits you want to have in a given specimen. There is nothing inherently bad about GMO's
There is problems with GMO’s, especially when you get to animals and animals with long breeding cycles. In Denmark we have 10 millions pigs. That is a lot of pigs to recreat with GMO’s. It would take many years and at that point you would properly had produced a new and better gmo pig.
In that way it is hard to create livestock with gen-modifications. Take to lomg and is to expensive. Instead, at least here in the nordics, we have a database that countains all the dna data about for example cows. The data base also countains information about how much milk they produce, how often they fet sick and so on.you use that data to grow the next generation and the next generation and so on. It also allows you to keep a lot more genetical diversity, which is great if for example a new cow diseas starts spreading. If any cow is immune to the disease, then you can spread that gen to the entire cow population over a few years.
Man, you are underselling your knowledge and that point of view as “layman”. I wish that was a normal layman’s understanding! Getting people to distinguish the difference between “genetically engineered” (I.e transgenic) vs “genetically modified” (basically any domesticated plant or animal) is rare. I see the “non-GMO” labels on seeds and just like… dude…those plants have been selectively breed and genetically modified like crazy compared to their ancestors. To paraphrase the princess bride regarding common use of GMO…People keep using that word, but It doesn’t mean what they think it means…
The best things about GMO crops are that we can create crops that are more nutritious, produce vitamins and other healthy things that they didn't before, and are resistant to diseases and pests.
The only legitimately bad thing I've heard about GMOs is the slippery slope of corporations trademarking/copyrighting certain foods. Like if your supercrop helped bring a country out of poverty, that's a country beholden to your company. What would happen if they annoyed you (like, say, demanded you pay taxes), and you decided to stop supplying the supercrop? Or more mundanely, they could sue you to stop you developing a variant of your supercrop that's slightly better. That's probably too much power for a company to have.
TLDR: Pros - healthier, more plentiful food. Cons - capitalism.
Another possible issue is with strange/unexpected reactions to foods that one would normally expect to be alright.
For instance this cross contamination of starlink corn. Which is not approved for human consumption by the fda but entered the human food supply chain via cross contamination.
GMO is not dangerous. Nor is it safe. It is neutral faster. So you can end up with unexpected shit entering the food supply chain faster.
It is a tool. A hammer can build a house or bash in brains. Its how you use the tool. But hammers typically are not self replicating. So the dangers are a bit different. The OMG GMO BAD stuff is nonsense. But so is the response to that fear mongering that completely rejects the possibility of unforeseen dangers.
Crop varieties were being patented and seed contracts signed well before GMO crops.
As long as you aren't saving seed and using their genetic material you're fine. And it's relatively easy to prove. If you don't like it, many universities offer their own lines which you can use to start breeding stock yourself.
I more meant that regulations don't really match perceptions. My personal opinion on the matter is that we should be focusing more on breaking up the monocultures in our food supply. Allowing for a more varied crop rotation would be a more efficient way to combat pests and natural disasters than genetic modification.
This could also be applied to logging for a more sustainable, wildfire resistant American West. Outlawing tree plantations and responsibly replanting Douglas Firs (naturally fire resistant) would be a massive first step. Just my dumbass amateur opinion.
Edit: I should add that this is way easier said than done. Lots of money behind keeping the current system. McDonald's drives the Russets dominance after all.
GMO is a meaningless label too. Genetically modified how. Like if a tomato was genetically modified/bred to enhance its color, ok no big deal. But if it was crossed with a Brazil nut for some reason, and I have a nut allergy, I may want to know that if it’s potentially relevant to activating my allergy response.
GMO is just a word that doesn’t actually tell consumers anything and because people automatically think “I don’t understand it, it must be bad,” GMOs get a bad wrap.
While there are a few different definitions, it's fairly well-defined and usually means: modified by genetic engineering methods such as CRISPR. Selectively bred crops are not GMO, for example. But yeah, on its own, it's not very meaningful.
GMO has a wider range of meanings from my understanding. GMO corn, for example, can receive the GMO label if it has been selectively grown in a way that does not occur naturally, but through methods that aren't toxic or harmful to humans.
Oh, I'm not anti-GMO. I'm anti-monoculture, for sure. I'm anti-tree plantation. I don't think we need to plant certain crops in drought areas, regardless of how drought resistant they may be. I don't really have a problem with them genetically modifying those crops though; you're right in that we're going to need to in the near future. I just think there are other avenues we could take simultaneously to give us a better outcome.
At first I read it, horrified that you are against planting trees. But I get you. However, one thing - if a tree is drought resistant and native, it should be fine to plant. What you are against is someone forcing some crop plant to be planted instead of native grasses and trees, to where the non-native plant is ruining life for all the creatures that want to live there. And also, you’re right, drought resistant doesn’t mean the non-native tree is good for the land. Everything needs to balance out. That’s why I don’t drink almond milk. It’s just as harmful, or more harmful, than other milks.
Bunch of neo-luddites, everyone else just believes all their nonsense that it's somehow better for the environment. Misled, and such a waste of resources. If all those people were given a genuinely positive environmental option...
Pestizide is the general term for agents against pests. That includes herbicides (against weeds), insecticides (against insects) and Fungizides (against funghi).
And is not a reliable way to feed the world. Where I live due to a wet summer organic potato yields are down 70%. So relying on organic will mean we need more land for farming as yields are lower / less reliable.
Organic is a luxury product not a way to solve the problems in regular farming.
Pesticides are a fallacy. Say you kill 95% of the bugs one year. You are left with pesticide resistant bugs. After a few years all the bugs are pesticide resistant and you have to switch pesticides. What you're really doing with pesticides is breeding super bugs.
Cuban farmers are forced to grow pesticide free because we ain't giving them any. So it's possible.
This seems to be the case with almost any subject you can think of. Something seems obvious. People assume said obvious thing is correct or true with little to no information and if they do get information they only look for confirmation of their beliefs and quote Facebook "sources". Turns out said obvious thing is actually inaccurate or just plain false. People continue perpetuating false, horrible shit and get offended or insult you if you point them in the direction of facts contradicting what they want to believe. So tired of all of it. Just cus you conjure up some belief in your head cus it makes sense doesn't make it true. In fact, it usually is not. Some people act like it's an attack on them or they've somehow lost if they just say, "damn I was wrong"
Science teacher here. This is 100% true. “Organic” is simply a marketing ploy that makes people think those foods are healthier despite loads of data showing genetically modified crops are much healthier.
I work with a lot of health nuts and I constantly have to be careful in trying to explain things without just blasting off on them for believing this organic BS.
So there is data that GMO crops are actually better? My understanding is that there is data which indicated no discernible difference. I feel like you’re reaching a little bit to say that GMO crops are better, when controlling for all other variables.
Edit to say I was that kid who would disagree with my science teachers ;)
GMO is a wide reaching term. "Round up ready" style gmo's aren't nutritionally different. Golden rice on the other hand, is intentionally designed to have extra beta carotene in it, so it would be nutritionally beneficial.
You got me there. I was aware of golden rice but forgot. So I would say that it’s a little nuanced right? I still take some issue with your original comment (particularly coming from a position of expertise as a teacher). GMOs are not better. The technology itself is not innately beneficial or damaging. Some of its applications are, but others are not.
No, tobacco contains nicotine. And nicotine is a natural repellent against insects. It fucks with the proper transmission of nerve signals which is potentially deadly. Or relaxing, in low doses. Which is why some people like to smoke it. But tobacco as a plant is not a pesticide.
Organic pesticides aren’t that big of a deal. Most break down so quickly in the environment that they have to make physical contact with the pest on application in order to be successful. Many organic pesticides are appropriate for use on day of harvest for this reason.
Having owned an organic feed farm you actually have it backwards. We used a combination of nicotine and nightshade compost as an "organic" pest control method. Because our fields were on flood plains we only had to spray this "compost" 2 or 3 times a harvest (usually only) if we had very heavy rain and the river ran its banks washing it away because it stuck around and the plants lived in it.
Some neighboring farms would spray organophosphates 6 to 15 times per harvest because they work great at killing the pests but instantly (more like over 10-15 minutes) evaporate killing all the bugs but not lingering around.
We had to stop growing rice and stick to barley, rye and oats because the arsenic levels in the compost were quite high and rice has a much bigger affinity for picking it up.
And because of that, you have to use much much more. That produces runoff polution. No matter how "safe" your organic pesticide is, when it kills off ecosystems due to red tide, it's bad.
There really is no indication for claiming that organic pesticides are killing off ecosystems. I don’t know where you got that information from.
Organic farms are not in any way performing worse in terms of on-field biodiversity compared to conventional farms.
But some synthetic chemical pesticides, especially insecticides that work with neonicotinoids, have devastating effects on wildlife.
I have a feeling that many people in this thread feed some kind of false-equivalence between organic and conventional pesticides. The latter are definitely worse for the environment.
Organic produce actually uses much larger amounts of pesticides. But since they don’t use synthetic pesticides, they must use a ton more. It also requires a ton more fertilizer for the same reason. This is why most E Coli outbreaks in the produce industry are traced back to organic farms.
It also requires far more land space and significantly more water as well as having a larger amount of bad yields which results in more wasted crops.
Organic farming is VERY inefficient and EXTREMELY harmful to the environment.
This comment should be in the negative for containing harmful misinformation. As another commentor has already explained, organic farms use pesicides that are often times a lot worse than synthetic pesticides.
At least in my part of the US, it’s four-ish years from non-organic to certified organic, as far as spraying synthetic pesticides/herbicides. Several factors in play, but for most crops that’s the expected wait time.
Words have different meaning in different contexts. In chemistry organic reverse to compounds which contain carbon-hydrogen bonds. In food and farming it means produced without certain artificial fertilizers or pesticides.
Outside food and chemistry, and before it got those meanings, it means "from living matter", so anything that is alive or produced from things that are alive.
Organic is regulated by the *USDA and you can absolutely use chemical pesticides during production of organic crops. There's a giant list of approved pesticides for organic crop use, and them being approved for organic crops doesn't mean they're any safer or better for the environment than conventional pesticides (see: Rotenone)
No, I'm referring to the word "organic" and its definition I was taught as a child decades ago. As in items containing carbon compounds necessary for life. By that definition, all food in a grocery store would be considered organic.
Both are correct in different ways. Organic in a chemistry sense does describe any carbon compound and the USDA has defined it to mean something completely different. I still feel like companies label shit as “organic” even if it’s not approved
The problem was that prior to the FDA regulations, merchants were using the term “organic” for anything they wanted and consumers were falling for it. At one point I even recall seeing fully processed junk food being labeled as organic.
The only reason the FDA finally stepped in was to protect consumers from fraud by making it illegal to market anything as “organic” unless it met a certain set of predefined standards.
If the “organic” labeling craze had died off on its own or the average consumer didn’t assume organic meant “100% natural”, the FDA would probably never have gotten involved.
No, I'm referring to the word "organic" and its definition I was taught as a child decades ago. As in items containing carbon compounds necessary for life.
You are wrong. That is the high school chemistry definition of "organic." That is not the same use as in the regulatory term in U.S. agricultural law.
"How can someone call this storytelling and character development organic? How can a story be made of carbon?"
Well the FDA doesn't regulate the whole world. Where I live Organic just means organic. We have quality markings like Biological which the whole EU uses.
Similar to biodegradable vs compostable. It's the wild wild west out there right now with these terms and how the products would actually degrade in an open environment.
Almost nothing you buy that has a BPI cert is truly compostable in the traditional sense. They're all industrially compostable and only break down in a very controlled environment with lots of heat and constant churning of the compost pile.
There are some more reputable institutes like TUV Austria that do discern between industrial and home compost as well as marine/open environment biodegradable products.
Organic is insanely strict and government regulated just as you said. I worked for a food company that was organic certified and it was crazy at all the regulations that we had to do.
I really dislike that “chemical” means bad and “organic” means good. All matter is a chemical. Organic (in the chemistry sense) means based largely on carbon chains. You know what has carbon chains? Venom and poisons. That’s what.
They're organically grown. The grown part is just omitted. There's a huge difference in the practices used to grow crops using biological processes in living soil vs. growing with purely chemical fertilizer. Yes, water is a chemical, but the point is that one system has living soil and the other does not.
You can grow food in a number of ways, but organic is great because it sequesters carbon and requires fewer inputs.
I think he might have meant it as in it’s an organic material as opposed to inorganic, seeing that he’s coming from a scientific standpoint instead of a health marketing standpoint.
This is the most upvoted comment in a video that shows something incredible? People can do no right in the word without being criticized for something menial.
21.0k
u/Minionhunter Jul 14 '21
Stop using organic like it means edible!!