Denmark is on its way to becoming an organic food country(foodrevolution.org)
foodrevolution.org
Denmark is on its way to becoming an organic food country
http://foodrevolution.org/blog/denmark-organic-country
12 comments
The article is quite misleading with its claims of organic being better than conventional agriculture
1) The UNCTAD report that is cited actually has the following text:
"The views expressed in the articles contained in this Review are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their respective organisations and institutions."
Many of the authors have ties with the organic industry (see https://thoughtscapism.com/2015/09/21/myth-un-calls-for-smal...)
2) Organic food has less pesticides exposure.
Not necessarily as organic agriculture also uses pesticides (naturally occuring ones). Though they tend to degrade quicker than synthetic ones, they are not as effective and need to be applied more often. Also the use of copper sulfate is allowed, which doesn't biodegrade and builds up in the soil.
The following is also completely rubbish
"Yes, pesticide residues are regulated by the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act, but the tolerance levels assigned for some pesticides pose potential health risks, even though they are considered “allowable.”"
3) Organic foods are more nutritious and taste better.
Nope. The article just cherry picks a few studies. Following meta study comes to conclusion that organic food is not more nutritious
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11833635
4) Organic foods help achieve biodiversity and soil fertility
Maybe on the area farmed, but it tends to not be as efficient as conventional farming, so increase acreage is needed which reduces biodiversity.
Regarding soil fertility, GMOs have actually helped thanks to no till agriculture.
5)Organic foods have no GMOs.
GMOs actually can help reduce pesticide use (but its not a silver bullet)
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
1) The UNCTAD report that is cited actually has the following text:
"The views expressed in the articles contained in this Review are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their respective organisations and institutions."
Many of the authors have ties with the organic industry (see https://thoughtscapism.com/2015/09/21/myth-un-calls-for-smal...)
2) Organic food has less pesticides exposure.
Not necessarily as organic agriculture also uses pesticides (naturally occuring ones). Though they tend to degrade quicker than synthetic ones, they are not as effective and need to be applied more often. Also the use of copper sulfate is allowed, which doesn't biodegrade and builds up in the soil.
The following is also completely rubbish
"Yes, pesticide residues are regulated by the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act, but the tolerance levels assigned for some pesticides pose potential health risks, even though they are considered “allowable.”"
3) Organic foods are more nutritious and taste better.
Nope. The article just cherry picks a few studies. Following meta study comes to conclusion that organic food is not more nutritious
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11833635
4) Organic foods help achieve biodiversity and soil fertility
Maybe on the area farmed, but it tends to not be as efficient as conventional farming, so increase acreage is needed which reduces biodiversity.
Regarding soil fertility, GMOs have actually helped thanks to no till agriculture.
5)Organic foods have no GMOs.
GMOs actually can help reduce pesticide use (but its not a silver bullet)
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
I did look at the UNCTAD report a bit, and it's disquietingly short on actual data to confirm their theses. The main thrust of what I read seemed to be focussing on the idea of empowering small landholders rather than industrial-scale farming, which actually isn't all that bad of an idea. But there doesn't seem to be any examination of things like crop yield effects of organic versus non-organic agricultural methods.
Also, on pesticides: organic pesticides are usually more toxic to humans than synthetic pesticides. (This makes a lot of sense: think of the optimization functions used to select pesticides in natural evolution versus synthetic production).
I did laugh on the "more nutritious and tastes better" bit. As you say, most studies and meta-studies find no effect on nutrition.
Also, on pesticides: organic pesticides are usually more toxic to humans than synthetic pesticides. (This makes a lot of sense: think of the optimization functions used to select pesticides in natural evolution versus synthetic production).
I did laugh on the "more nutritious and tastes better" bit. As you say, most studies and meta-studies find no effect on nutrition.
>Not necessarily as organic agriculture also uses pesticides (naturally occuring ones)
Actually, a better characterization could be "medieval ones". For instance, copper sulfate (CuSO4) is not exactly a "naturally occurring" substance, it's an industrial chemical but allowed in organic agriculture because it is a "traditional" pesticide (even though it is more toxic than, say, glyphosate, by a factor of 10).
Other than that, you make the points I would have made.
Actually, a better characterization could be "medieval ones". For instance, copper sulfate (CuSO4) is not exactly a "naturally occurring" substance, it's an industrial chemical but allowed in organic agriculture because it is a "traditional" pesticide (even though it is more toxic than, say, glyphosate, by a factor of 10).
Other than that, you make the points I would have made.
4) ...
Account the footprint of the chemical plant where fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery comes from. Look at the shipping footprint to get those inputs into your fields. Look at the energy source for spreading them. Then look at fertilizer- and pesticide-use externalities.
Conventional fields are net exporters of pollutants and species death. Whereas an ecologically rich field is going to actually filter water and net export richer biodiversity to it's surrounding ecosystem.
The "conventional" advantage is on money and time--not concentration of biomass or biological health.
The findings of a 2013 report from the United Nations titled, “Wake Up Before It’s Too Late,” say small-scale, organic farming is the only way to sustainably feed the world.
The report they're referring to can be accessed here:
http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditcted2012d3_en.pd...
That report is not an official statement by the United Nations nor any of its working groups. It's published by a UN committee, but it's merely a collection of papers by individual authors. They say right in the introduction (page 3) that the opinions expressed in it are not those of the United Nations or any of its member States. So it's misleading to call it a "report from the United Nations".
It's not even clear to me which article they're specifically referring to. I only skimmed it (it's 321 pages long) and did some keyword searches, but I don't see a direct "we must do only 'organic' farming or we all die" statement. Addressing concerns like crop monocultures can be done incrementally, without abandoning the benefits of pesticides and genetic modification.
But even then, when you're talking about 'feeding the world', crop yields are the name of the game. And my understanding is exactly the opposite of this article: crop yields under organic farming techniques is lower than conventional modern farming (by ~20% according to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X11...). Further, I recall that this gap is below the level to sustain the world's current population.
In other words, by advocating for 100% organic farming, you're intentionally advocating for a practice that will lead to starvation of part of the world's population. I can't see how that's conscionable.
The report they're referring to can be accessed here:
http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditcted2012d3_en.pd...
That report is not an official statement by the United Nations nor any of its working groups. It's published by a UN committee, but it's merely a collection of papers by individual authors. They say right in the introduction (page 3) that the opinions expressed in it are not those of the United Nations or any of its member States. So it's misleading to call it a "report from the United Nations".
It's not even clear to me which article they're specifically referring to. I only skimmed it (it's 321 pages long) and did some keyword searches, but I don't see a direct "we must do only 'organic' farming or we all die" statement. Addressing concerns like crop monocultures can be done incrementally, without abandoning the benefits of pesticides and genetic modification.
But even then, when you're talking about 'feeding the world', crop yields are the name of the game. And my understanding is exactly the opposite of this article: crop yields under organic farming techniques is lower than conventional modern farming (by ~20% according to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X11...). Further, I recall that this gap is below the level to sustain the world's current population.
In other words, by advocating for 100% organic farming, you're intentionally advocating for a practice that will lead to starvation of part of the world's population. I can't see how that's conscionable.
In the U.S., fast food workers are struggling to get a respectable increase in pay. But in Denmark, the fast food industry pays its workers at least $20 an hour.
That's at least $5 more than the $15 minimum wage the same class of workers are fighting for here (in the US).
That's at least $5 more than the $15 minimum wage the same class of workers are fighting for here (in the US).
A quick search shows that a meal at McDoanld's is 50% more in Denmark than in the US. I am not really sure on the accuracy of Numbeo, but the comparative price of a meal to wage is interesting.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_resu...
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_resu...
Well, since we are talking about McDonald's, you could also look at the Big Mac Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index
But yes, a cheeseburger here costs 10 DKK. That's 1.50 USD. I don't know what a cheeseburger costs in the US, but I'd imagine it's 1 USD.
But yes, a cheeseburger here costs 10 DKK. That's 1.50 USD. I don't know what a cheeseburger costs in the US, but I'd imagine it's 1 USD.
American Fast Food chains are more expensive in most of Europe compared to the US. Is that a bad thing?
Not just American fast food chains. Everything is more expensive. Yes, I can see how people think it is bad.
A quick search shows that a meal at McDoanld's is 50% more in Denmark than in the US.
This has more to do with the cost of labour than that of the underlying food ingredients.
This has more to do with the cost of labour than that of the underlying food ingredients.
Have you been to Denmark before? I can't speak for the rest of the country, but Copenhagen is SERIOUSLY expensive.
Even from a German perspective Denmark is 30-50% more expensive. Beautiful country and fast Internet, though :)
Yes, they still have a pretty high PPI though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
In Sweden we usually talk about marginal tax rates and how Denmark usually has got us beat on that front but it seems it's mostly their high VAT that makes that possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
In Sweden we usually talk about marginal tax rates and how Denmark usually has got us beat on that front but it seems it's mostly their high VAT that makes that possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
Love the constant propaganda that is literally everywhere
How does one find the magical line with food whereby doing millennia of untargeted poorly-understood genetic engineering is what nature intended? Does it only become artificial when we get good at it?
I think I have too much of a scientific bent to understand the religious reasoning involved.
I think I have too much of a scientific bent to understand the religious reasoning involved.
It's easy. If it comes from a highly-regulated industry requiring substantial investment in safety and efficacy studies to get anything to market, then all of those studies are clearly lies and everything is from the spawn of Satan. If it comes from an industry which law prevents any agency from regulating any claims of safety and efficacy and that can't be bothered to actually put the listed ingredients in their products, then everything they say is gospel truth and there is absolutely no harm.
I would say it's a simple everything-corporate-is-evil philosophy, but there are some pretty big corporations behind the alternative medicine/organic farming stuff that are good at hiding the fact that they're big corporations.
I would say it's a simple everything-corporate-is-evil philosophy, but there are some pretty big corporations behind the alternative medicine/organic farming stuff that are good at hiding the fact that they're big corporations.
You seem to be conflating 'GMO' with 'organic'. Organic food is more about avoiding pesticide residue, artificial hormones or antibiotics, etc. And if you don't find things like carcinogens or endocrine disruptors scientific then I'm sorry to tell you that you're underinformed.
[deleted]
"Organic" food is not about avoiding pesticide residue; it is about using pesticides approved by certifying parties and paying for this certification.
Avoiding hormones and antibiotics is more relevant. Carcinogens are everywhere.
Avoiding hormones and antibiotics is more relevant. Carcinogens are everywhere.
While I think it's true that organic is big in Denmark, e.g. common kindergartens in my area generally seem to be using mostly organic food in their kitchens, I don't think the summary is accurate in the sense that there's a long, long way before the whole country has switched to organic production. Or consumption for that matter. If it will ever happen.
The article is quoting the previous government, by the way, the current one just announced it's going to cut the temporary subsidies given to farms switching to organic production.
The article is quoting the previous government, by the way, the current one just announced it's going to cut the temporary subsidies given to farms switching to organic production.
"Organic" food doesn't mean a whole lot, and it's produced at such large scales that the ecological benefits attributed to "organic" food aren't there. Now, on the other hand, you can apply those to small scale, locally produced, sourced, and distributed food. Buying locally grown food is a benefit to your community yourself, and often your environment, whereas organic is just a marketing word.
Organic food is pseudoscience. The only good reason to buy organic is that it is often a proxy for higher quality in general, but that's not universally true.
Modern inorganic farming methods are necessary for feeding the world. If the whole world switched to organic farming, there would be cataclysmic mass starvation.
Modern inorganic farming methods are necessary for feeding the world. If the whole world switched to organic farming, there would be cataclysmic mass starvation.
>Organic food is pseudoscience.
Organic food is a misnomer.
Or rather, it's a label that comes with extra guarantees besides non-GMO, that not all make sense, and is there to make a quick buck on the upper middle class and the hippy types.
What's actually neither GMO nor Organic is plain food stuff, you know, the plain food that the planet produces, maybe with a few pesticides or some treatment that's a-ok, but doesn't qualify as Organic.
Of this (and of its Organic sibling) some of it is evolutionary created and consumed by humans for 10s of thousands of years, and other is cross-bread in a slow and limited process (e.g. not being able to do stuff like take fruit-fly genes to put into bananas) by farmers -- and still tested and consumed over centuries.
GMOs, on the other hand, are not "science" in the same way that while Donald Knuth or Djikstra is Computer Science, J2EE or the latest foobar.js some company pushes are not.
They are of course backed by science, but what they really are is applied technology as driven by business interests.
And often the same business interests that could (and some would) put poison in kid's milk, if it made for a cheaper product and higher margin.
I'd rather have food stuff that passed evolutionary tests, than the latest gene-mix from the inventors and pushers of HFCS and several other crappy quality food chemistry substances that increase their margins...
Then there's the whole seed-control with IP rights and forcing farmers to rebuy them (and not save them) year over year can of worms...
Organic food is a misnomer.
Or rather, it's a label that comes with extra guarantees besides non-GMO, that not all make sense, and is there to make a quick buck on the upper middle class and the hippy types.
What's actually neither GMO nor Organic is plain food stuff, you know, the plain food that the planet produces, maybe with a few pesticides or some treatment that's a-ok, but doesn't qualify as Organic.
Of this (and of its Organic sibling) some of it is evolutionary created and consumed by humans for 10s of thousands of years, and other is cross-bread in a slow and limited process (e.g. not being able to do stuff like take fruit-fly genes to put into bananas) by farmers -- and still tested and consumed over centuries.
GMOs, on the other hand, are not "science" in the same way that while Donald Knuth or Djikstra is Computer Science, J2EE or the latest foobar.js some company pushes are not.
They are of course backed by science, but what they really are is applied technology as driven by business interests.
And often the same business interests that could (and some would) put poison in kid's milk, if it made for a cheaper product and higher margin.
I'd rather have food stuff that passed evolutionary tests, than the latest gene-mix from the inventors and pushers of HFCS and several other crappy quality food chemistry substances that increase their margins...
Then there's the whole seed-control with IP rights and forcing farmers to rebuy them (and not save them) year over year can of worms...
A lot of misconceptions here, unless I'm misreading your post.
The seed control stuff is really just Monsanto being incredibly shitty at PR. See NPR[1]; also, in the past 10, 20 years or so, there's only been one lawsuit between Monsanto and farmers[2] (news flash: it was the farmers that sued Monsanto). Also, organic seeds get patented too, it's not just GMO seeds[3].
I also highly suggest you read William Saletan's article on GMO's[4]
Another fun fact: organic doesn't mean evolution-based. Mutagenesis and specially-grown cultivars have become an increasingly popular way to produce foods that get the organic label; it's only really transgenesis (gene splicing) that you can't say is organic.
To be clear: I'm not denying that there are despicable business practices out there (hell, did you know that there's actually a black market for stuff like olive oil and fish?), and that there is definitely something to be said for the US-EU split on the proper way to regulate GMO's, but organic is generally just a stupid concept.
[1] (http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...)
[2] (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or...)
[3] (https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/07/challengin...)
[4] (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...)
The seed control stuff is really just Monsanto being incredibly shitty at PR. See NPR[1]; also, in the past 10, 20 years or so, there's only been one lawsuit between Monsanto and farmers[2] (news flash: it was the farmers that sued Monsanto). Also, organic seeds get patented too, it's not just GMO seeds[3].
I also highly suggest you read William Saletan's article on GMO's[4]
Another fun fact: organic doesn't mean evolution-based. Mutagenesis and specially-grown cultivars have become an increasingly popular way to produce foods that get the organic label; it's only really transgenesis (gene splicing) that you can't say is organic.
To be clear: I'm not denying that there are despicable business practices out there (hell, did you know that there's actually a black market for stuff like olive oil and fish?), and that there is definitely something to be said for the US-EU split on the proper way to regulate GMO's, but organic is generally just a stupid concept.
[1] (http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...)
[2] (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or...)
[3] (https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/07/challengin...)
[4] (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...)
>The seed control stuff is really just Monsanto being incredibly shitty at PR. See NPR[1]; also, in the past 10, 20 years or so, there's only been one lawsuit between Monsanto and farmers[2] (news flash: it was the farmers that sued Monsanto).
That's plainly incorrect.
Since the mid‑1990s, Monsanto indicates that it has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed but has proceeded through trial against only eleven farmers, all of which it won. The Center for Food Safety has listed 90 lawsuits through 2004 by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations. (Wikipedia)
>Another fun fact: organic doesn't mean evolution-based. Mutagenesis and specially-grown cultivars have become an increasingly popular way to produce foods that get the organic label; it's only really transgenesis (gene splicing) that you can't say is organic.
I already addressed that though. Natural mutagenesis is still evolution (heck, it's one of the very engines of evolution), and I'm all for slow methods to produce foods (even if they cross species) over gene splicing, especially with the current (BS) level of knowledge that the gene splicers have over the possible consequences of what they are doing and the lack of scientific rigor when big business are involved.
>but organic is generally just a stupid concept.
Don't disagree much with that. Also noted that I don't particularly care for food with the label "organic" (which is an industry on its own, when it comes to certification, higher prices, etc.). Plain ole food-stuff is enough.
That's plainly incorrect.
Since the mid‑1990s, Monsanto indicates that it has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed but has proceeded through trial against only eleven farmers, all of which it won. The Center for Food Safety has listed 90 lawsuits through 2004 by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations. (Wikipedia)
>Another fun fact: organic doesn't mean evolution-based. Mutagenesis and specially-grown cultivars have become an increasingly popular way to produce foods that get the organic label; it's only really transgenesis (gene splicing) that you can't say is organic.
I already addressed that though. Natural mutagenesis is still evolution (heck, it's one of the very engines of evolution), and I'm all for slow methods to produce foods (even if they cross species) over gene splicing, especially with the current (BS) level of knowledge that the gene splicers have over the possible consequences of what they are doing and the lack of scientific rigor when big business are involved.
>but organic is generally just a stupid concept.
Don't disagree much with that. Also noted that I don't particularly care for food with the label "organic" (which is an industry on its own, when it comes to certification, higher prices, etc.). Plain ole food-stuff is enough.
>* The only good reason to buy organic is that it is often a proxy for higher quality in general*
I also favour "organic" eggs, because the chicken are treated better, even if that is not detectable in the quality of the eggs themselves.
But I agree that mostly "organic" is just a scam.
I also favour "organic" eggs, because the chicken are treated better, even if that is not detectable in the quality of the eggs themselves.
But I agree that mostly "organic" is just a scam.
> organic is [...] often a proxy for higher quality in general, but that's not universally true.
Agree.
> Modern inorganic farming methods are necessary for feeding the world. If the whole world switched to organic farming, there would be cataclysmic mass starvation.
Most certainly false! By reducing meat consumption or increasing labor intensity organic agriculture could easily support the whole world.
For many of the places where food security is needed the most, increased soil quality, as supported by organic agriculture, would help a lot. http://www.unep.org/pdf/SmallholderReport_WEB.pdf
Agree.
> Modern inorganic farming methods are necessary for feeding the world. If the whole world switched to organic farming, there would be cataclysmic mass starvation.
Most certainly false! By reducing meat consumption or increasing labor intensity organic agriculture could easily support the whole world.
For many of the places where food security is needed the most, increased soil quality, as supported by organic agriculture, would help a lot. http://www.unep.org/pdf/SmallholderReport_WEB.pdf
Organic food is pseudoscience.
Really? Care to elaborate on that?
The article lists the many reasons why organic foods are better than non-organic ones. You should read it.
Really? Care to elaborate on that?
The article lists the many reasons why organic foods are better than non-organic ones. You should read it.
Listen to this podcast by the NPR Planet Money guy's Gimlet Media:
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-food/
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-food/
It's a propaganda article on a food-hipsterism advocacy website. Do the research for yourself. Very quickly though, their points about organic food being more efficient, tastier, healthier, non-GMO, and pesticide-free are either wrong, conflating correlation with causation (as overpriced luxury food is more likely to be organic), or misleading (as GMO and many pesticides are totally safe).
>as GMO and many pesticides are totally safe
Pesticides, yummy.
It doesn't inspire much confidence on the other hand that the pushers of GMOs are huge conglomerates that control seeds (similarly to IP rights and DRM), would sell any BS for a quick buck, and are not that dissimilar to the tobacco industry that testified that "smoking is not harmful" and sponsored tons of studies in the 70s and 80s (with real scientists, universities et al) to prove that point.
Pesticides, yummy.
It doesn't inspire much confidence on the other hand that the pushers of GMOs are huge conglomerates that control seeds (similarly to IP rights and DRM), would sell any BS for a quick buck, and are not that dissimilar to the tobacco industry that testified that "smoking is not harmful" and sponsored tons of studies in the 70s and 80s (with real scientists, universities et al) to prove that point.
> Pesticides, yummy.
Organic doesn't mean pesticide free, far from it. Organic farms (especially big factory farms) use pesticides very liberally - "natural" pesticides. They don't have to be safer than synthetics in any way, you don't have to use less, they just have to be natural. So we spray crops with stuff like Copper or (mostly in the past) Rotenone[1].
We've stupidly classified all natural poisons as "non-toxic" and all synthetics as "horribly dangerous". Nature is full of stuff you don't want to spray on your food.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone
Organic doesn't mean pesticide free, far from it. Organic farms (especially big factory farms) use pesticides very liberally - "natural" pesticides. They don't have to be safer than synthetics in any way, you don't have to use less, they just have to be natural. So we spray crops with stuff like Copper or (mostly in the past) Rotenone[1].
We've stupidly classified all natural poisons as "non-toxic" and all synthetics as "horribly dangerous". Nature is full of stuff you don't want to spray on your food.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone
It doesn't inspire much confidence that the pushers of Organic food are huge conglomerates that push people into buying needlessly expensive food.
That would be relevant if I particularly cared for Organic food.
But there is tons of food that is neither Organic (certified and pushed by Whole Foods etc) nor GMO.
You know, it's just food. And it's what we've been having for years, and 100% of what we do have now (I never buy Organic anyway, except if it's something not available as general foodstuff).
But there is tons of food that is neither Organic (certified and pushed by Whole Foods etc) nor GMO.
You know, it's just food. And it's what we've been having for years, and 100% of what we do have now (I never buy Organic anyway, except if it's something not available as general foodstuff).
None of the reasons listed in the article are backed with published science.
Point #3 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogss...
“The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world's waterways from conventional agriculture are, it's a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats altogether.”
“The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world's waterways from conventional agriculture are, it's a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats altogether.”
This is highly incorrect. The french experiment "ferme du bec" did some really important studies in that field going well beyond simply "organic". Using the latest bio tech of permaculture, (combining different plants completing each other instead of monoculture); they showed higher per square meter production rate, and sustainable income for farmers, without subsidies. They don't even use a truck, as the tools are not there yet for their approach. The experiment has been since reproduced, expanded, repeated with success in other European countries and under different climate. http://www.fermedubec.com/inra/ENGLISH%20-%20Ferme%20biologi...
That study shows that organic farmers make money, not that organic farming can keep up with world demand on food. So Im not sure that this demonstrates that GP was "highly incorrect".
Am I the only one who finds the word "organic" stupid? Taken literally, it means that there are no anorganic ingredients, e.g. no salt and no water. Most countries use the term "biological" instead (implying an absence of chemicals), which I find a much better fit.
In the context of Denmark, Danish/Denmark uses the term »økologi« which is closest to 'ecology' in English.
I visited Denmark from San Francisco in 2014. The food there was atrociously expensive. ATROCIOUS.
Denmark does many things better than the US ... such as bicycle lanes. But food isn't one of those things.
Plus, much of organic food theory is total pseudoscientific bunk.
Check out this survey of research on organic food in the Gimlet Media podcast: https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-food/
Denmark does many things better than the US ... such as bicycle lanes. But food isn't one of those things.
Plus, much of organic food theory is total pseudoscientific bunk.
Check out this survey of research on organic food in the Gimlet Media podcast: https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-food/
Food is artificially cheap in the U.S., by a lot. U.S. factory farming is heavily subsidized--to the point that those farmers basically live off the subsidies.
That podcast guest is shit--food from ecological systems is absolutely better tasting. Ask any decent chef (myself included).
The idea that "organic food theory is bunk" is really hand-wavy. The importance of organic is the emphasis on ecology and soil health. Basically, life is made of carbon. So farms that are rich in life hold onto carbon. Whereas factory farm systems rely on monocrops, pesticides, and fertilizers, which sterilize life. These practices get an initial productivity bump, but end up depleting carrying capacity over several seasons. Subsidies are the crutch that keeps all that going.
That podcast guest is shit--food from ecological systems is absolutely better tasting. Ask any decent chef (myself included).
The idea that "organic food theory is bunk" is really hand-wavy. The importance of organic is the emphasis on ecology and soil health. Basically, life is made of carbon. So farms that are rich in life hold onto carbon. Whereas factory farm systems rely on monocrops, pesticides, and fertilizers, which sterilize life. These practices get an initial productivity bump, but end up depleting carrying capacity over several seasons. Subsidies are the crutch that keeps all that going.
>food from ecological systems is absolutely better tasting. Ask any decent chef (myself included).
Have you done any (double blind) A/B testing to conclude this? Argument from authority (even if they are decent chefs) doesn't count.
Have you done any (double blind) A/B testing to conclude this? Argument from authority (even if they are decent chefs) doesn't count.
I have. I've designed and participated in blind A/B tests for coffee, wheat, fish, chicken, eggs, mushrooms, peaches, squash, watermelon, and others I'm forgetting. Not for a research paper, but for sourcing decisions at a restaurant and on farms testing different cultivation methods.
Why don't you publish your revolutionary findings in a peer-reviewed journal? You will be hailed as the father of a completely new field of scientific inquiry. (Since current science cannot explain how the same food can taste different just because it was raised organically.)
There is nothing that says a farmer can't use sustainable crop rotation practices with fertilizer and pesticide use. In fact, that is what farmers do regularly ... in many places. They aren't idiots that just pump fertilizer and pesticide in their fields to destroy them. If you actually spend some time on a regular commercial farm, you'll find that is the case in this day and age ... even in the US.
Organic food theory is bunk. The double blind taste tests prove, scientifically that your better taste theory is wrong. You know you can grow heirloom varieties and perishable varieties with pesticide and fertilizer too right? Just because people grow perishable and heirloom varieties with organic methods, because rich people like organic, and rich people pay for these lower yielding varieties also, doesn't make these factors inherently confounded. You can separate them if consumer tastes at the top of the market change.
My family grows very delicious fruit and vegetable by using a judicious amount of pesticide and fertilizer, in a sustainable way, in central california. We practice crop rotation in our vegetable gardens (but our primary crop is walnuts which does not allow for crop rotation ... but we are exploring mixed use ... but harvesting constraints and other issues dominate the calculation on whether crop mixing is feasible there).
I am a programmer in San Francisco, and my father would probably have been one in 1970 if such a career was available to him then. He is a really smart guy. You think he is an idiot who doesn't examine all the issues when choosing to use pesticide and fertilizer? Our land has been in our family for almost a century. It is still yielding well. We know very well how to farm sustainably.
Edit: as for subsidies, we don't want them. But we live in a market where prices are determined by them. Subsidies are bad. But, we cannot remove subsidies as individuals. And I disagree that low prices are a result of subsidies in the aggregate. They are certainly for specific crops ... and certainly for meat. But unless you consider water use a subsidy, I don't think food would get 50% more expensive without subsidies. Total US Ag subsidies is around $20 Billion while the size of the Ag sector is like $900Billion. 20 Billion removal will not effect an almost 1 Trillion dollar market in such a drastic way. Specific crops will be more expensive, but on the whole, agriculture will migrate to better, unconventional crops. We will actually meet market demand BETTER once subsidies don't distort our crop choices.
Organic food theory is bunk. The double blind taste tests prove, scientifically that your better taste theory is wrong. You know you can grow heirloom varieties and perishable varieties with pesticide and fertilizer too right? Just because people grow perishable and heirloom varieties with organic methods, because rich people like organic, and rich people pay for these lower yielding varieties also, doesn't make these factors inherently confounded. You can separate them if consumer tastes at the top of the market change.
My family grows very delicious fruit and vegetable by using a judicious amount of pesticide and fertilizer, in a sustainable way, in central california. We practice crop rotation in our vegetable gardens (but our primary crop is walnuts which does not allow for crop rotation ... but we are exploring mixed use ... but harvesting constraints and other issues dominate the calculation on whether crop mixing is feasible there).
I am a programmer in San Francisco, and my father would probably have been one in 1970 if such a career was available to him then. He is a really smart guy. You think he is an idiot who doesn't examine all the issues when choosing to use pesticide and fertilizer? Our land has been in our family for almost a century. It is still yielding well. We know very well how to farm sustainably.
Edit: as for subsidies, we don't want them. But we live in a market where prices are determined by them. Subsidies are bad. But, we cannot remove subsidies as individuals. And I disagree that low prices are a result of subsidies in the aggregate. They are certainly for specific crops ... and certainly for meat. But unless you consider water use a subsidy, I don't think food would get 50% more expensive without subsidies. Total US Ag subsidies is around $20 Billion while the size of the Ag sector is like $900Billion. 20 Billion removal will not effect an almost 1 Trillion dollar market in such a drastic way. Specific crops will be more expensive, but on the whole, agriculture will migrate to better, unconventional crops. We will actually meet market demand BETTER once subsidies don't distort our crop choices.
We should acknowledge that there's a problem with terminology and lumping too many things together. There are fertilizers and pesticides that come from a chemical plant, and there are those that come from recycled biomass. I've worked on both kinds of farms and alongside chefs. I've done blind taste tests, and the trend is that the richer ecological systems produce better flavor, especially with meat.
What that study you linked to shows is that people interpret flavor with high suggestibility for the food's origin. They were misrepresenting origin to tasters--not just blindly tasting things. Plus, they were only looking at tomatoes. I guarantee if you run a completely blind experiment (with no suggestion bias) with peaches, gourds, or any meat product--factory system loses.
But the main point is that farmers have to make choices. To the extent that subsidies make factory-model decisions more viable--this leads to more food that is artificially cheap. And unpriced negative externalities are a form of subsidy. You can exploit a farm's ecological endowment or invest in it. If prices were perfect--investing in ecological richness would be more heavily rewarded.
What that study you linked to shows is that people interpret flavor with high suggestibility for the food's origin. They were misrepresenting origin to tasters--not just blindly tasting things. Plus, they were only looking at tomatoes. I guarantee if you run a completely blind experiment (with no suggestion bias) with peaches, gourds, or any meat product--factory system loses.
But the main point is that farmers have to make choices. To the extent that subsidies make factory-model decisions more viable--this leads to more food that is artificially cheap. And unpriced negative externalities are a form of subsidy. You can exploit a farm's ecological endowment or invest in it. If prices were perfect--investing in ecological richness would be more heavily rewarded.
But the fundamental issue with taste is that of varieties and of soil quality. It is completely false that the use of fertilizer and pesticide (even from a factory) when judiciously used, will affect the soil quality more adversely than organic cultivation.
I would argue, that using some pesticide and fertilizer is BETTER than pure organic methods, because you will not only grow delicious crops, you will have the luxury of trying some varieties which, while delicious, are too sensitive to disease to exploit commercially otherwise.
Edit:
There are many methods championed by organic farmers that do produce tastier food. But those methods are not tied to not using fertilizers and pesticides from factories. And while I credit them with introducing those methods. Those methods can be hybridized with the use of fertilizer and pesticide to get both yield and taste up.
In the case of meat, its clear that factory farmed chicken is garbage. Free range chicken tastes much better. We can use some scientific methods to discover what makes the free range chicken taste better, rather than accepting like religion that just putting them in a free roam yard is the reason for the flavor.
I would argue, that using some pesticide and fertilizer is BETTER than pure organic methods, because you will not only grow delicious crops, you will have the luxury of trying some varieties which, while delicious, are too sensitive to disease to exploit commercially otherwise.
Edit:
There are many methods championed by organic farmers that do produce tastier food. But those methods are not tied to not using fertilizers and pesticides from factories. And while I credit them with introducing those methods. Those methods can be hybridized with the use of fertilizer and pesticide to get both yield and taste up.
In the case of meat, its clear that factory farmed chicken is garbage. Free range chicken tastes much better. We can use some scientific methods to discover what makes the free range chicken taste better, rather than accepting like religion that just putting them in a free roam yard is the reason for the flavor.
Again, I think because of the limits of terminology and the forum, it seems like we're arguing past each other. But we probably agree on more than we disagree on.
"Judiciously used", by the meaning of the words, limits what it describes to cases where it is in fact the right set of decisions. The injudicious cases are the ones I'm interested in picking out.
If you have a pest or pathogen problem that is recurring, applying RoundUp or some other chemical combatant is not as good as introducing a rotation or a biological competitor or predator. If you're soil is consistently deficient in certain elements--the overall better strategy is to introduce organic matter that feeds life in the soil (rotations, compost, etc.), rather than applying a factory-made fertilizer. The factory input just isn't as sustainable season-to-season as feeding biological matter into the soil.
There are also several perspectives from which to measure outcomes, that may have conflicting interpretations--flavor, nutrition, ecological impact, short-term vs long-term economics, etc.
So to the point that Denmark encourages good long-term economics, ecological impact, flavor, and nutrition--it's a good, sustainable project.
"Judiciously used", by the meaning of the words, limits what it describes to cases where it is in fact the right set of decisions. The injudicious cases are the ones I'm interested in picking out.
If you have a pest or pathogen problem that is recurring, applying RoundUp or some other chemical combatant is not as good as introducing a rotation or a biological competitor or predator. If you're soil is consistently deficient in certain elements--the overall better strategy is to introduce organic matter that feeds life in the soil (rotations, compost, etc.), rather than applying a factory-made fertilizer. The factory input just isn't as sustainable season-to-season as feeding biological matter into the soil.
There are also several perspectives from which to measure outcomes, that may have conflicting interpretations--flavor, nutrition, ecological impact, short-term vs long-term economics, etc.
So to the point that Denmark encourages good long-term economics, ecological impact, flavor, and nutrition--it's a good, sustainable project.
The US spends 20 bln $ per year on farm subsidies, the EU spends 59 bln Euros.
You can find organic pesticides on label look-up services. Personally, the general toxicity, great frequency of application, marginally lower safety, and greater environmental impacts of organic lead me to choose conventional whenever I have a choice (in California you don't always).
http://agrian.com/labelcenter/results.cfm?
http://agrian.com/labelcenter/results.cfm?
You also need to take in account the considerably higher energy cost, water cost and overall negative environmental impact of "organic" crops.
Organic crops are bad, sorry they are awful.
You are saying that we don't do food better because it's more expensive? But it's expensive to you. The local purchasing power in Denmark is higher than it in the US. To Danish people (such as myself), it doesn't feel expensive. Although, it doesn't feel cheap either. We are quite aware that we have the third highest cost of living.
But seriously, food being expensive is not the same as not doing food right. The few times I've been in the US, I've always been disappointed about the food available in supermarkets. It's hard to find stuff such as good milk or butter.
But seriously, food being expensive is not the same as not doing food right. The few times I've been in the US, I've always been disappointed about the food available in supermarkets. It's hard to find stuff such as good milk or butter.
If you want food done right in Europe, you go to Italy, of course! It's 'real' food (not necessarily 'organic') that tastes good, and gets lots of sunlight, so all kinds of delicious things grow.
I doubt the purchasing power of Denmark is more than the purchasing power in San Francisco.
But even if you are right, that doesn't mean a good should be so expensive ... just because it CAN be expensive.
Also, its easy for Danes to distort the cultivation practices abroad by encouraging low yield practices to entertain their organic fetish. But that reduced yield forces additional open space to be brought under cultivation ... reducing wild habitat.
There are ways of doing agriculture sustainably, with a mix of traditional practices and a measured and scientific use of fertilizer and pesticide. Just because pesticide and fertilizer can be abused, does not mean they are abusive by nature.
But even if you are right, that doesn't mean a good should be so expensive ... just because it CAN be expensive.
Also, its easy for Danes to distort the cultivation practices abroad by encouraging low yield practices to entertain their organic fetish. But that reduced yield forces additional open space to be brought under cultivation ... reducing wild habitat.
There are ways of doing agriculture sustainably, with a mix of traditional practices and a measured and scientific use of fertilizer and pesticide. Just because pesticide and fertilizer can be abused, does not mean they are abusive by nature.
San Francisco is very different from the rest of the US, particularly in the quality and cost of food.
So, the cost comparison may be apt although this page, which compare cost of living between San Francisco and Denmark suggests that groceries in San Francisco are way more expensive (nearly 60%), although restaurants are cheaper (16%).
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
Not sure how reliable a source this is though.
So, the cost comparison may be apt although this page, which compare cost of living between San Francisco and Denmark suggests that groceries in San Francisco are way more expensive (nearly 60%), although restaurants are cheaper (16%).
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
Not sure how reliable a source this is though.
It makes sense to me that prepared meals at restaurants are more expensive. Wages for low-paid jobs are generally higher in Denmark I think. Less inequality. It probably has the side-effect that more Danes cook their meals themselves.
No it's not, food is expensive in Europe and in Denmark period.
The purchasing power is high, but the cost of food are not remotely cheap to the local population, Danes spend more than twice the percentage of their annual income on food than the their fellow Americans.
Also the purchasing power of a US citizen is about 25% higher than that of a Danish citizen.
> No it's not, food is expensive in Europe and in Denmark period.
I've travelled around Europe, food is very cheap in Central, Southern and Eastern Europe. It's basically Scandinavia that's expensive.
> Danes spend more than twice the percentage of their annual income on food than the their fellow Americans. Also the purchasing power of a US citizen is about 25% higher than that of a Danish citizen.
Source? I'm actually really curious.
I've travelled around Europe, food is very cheap in Central, Southern and Eastern Europe. It's basically Scandinavia that's expensive.
> Danes spend more than twice the percentage of their annual income on food than the their fellow Americans. Also the purchasing power of a US citizen is about 25% higher than that of a Danish citizen.
Source? I'm actually really curious.
>I've travelled around Europe, food is very cheap in Central, Southern and Eastern Europe. It's basically Scandinavia that's expensive.
In Scandinavia it's actually relatively "cheaper" to locals compared to central/eastern Europe, while Danes spend ~12% of their annual income on food Poles spend over 20%. That's because the price of many food products is actually relatively similar in most countries within the EU including local production but there is a pretty high disparity as far as annual income goes.
>Source? I'm actually really curious.
http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28
Generate a report with the PPP rating.
US PPP is 55K Denmark is 45K, if you care about take home wage then the US is also higher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_take-... Overall the US has cheaper housing, transportation, food and local services combined with considerably lower tax burden than Europe.
In Scandinavia it's actually relatively "cheaper" to locals compared to central/eastern Europe, while Danes spend ~12% of their annual income on food Poles spend over 20%. That's because the price of many food products is actually relatively similar in most countries within the EU including local production but there is a pretty high disparity as far as annual income goes.
>Source? I'm actually really curious.
http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28
Generate a report with the PPP rating.
US PPP is 55K Denmark is 45K, if you care about take home wage then the US is also higher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_take-... Overall the US has cheaper housing, transportation, food and local services combined with considerably lower tax burden than Europe.
There is around 1$ per day per person food subsidy in the US, which has a rather large impact on food prices especially meat. 20% of this is in the form of direct aid, but the spending comes in a very wide range of support for rural areas because of over representation in our political process.
Ex: http://www.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/ yes these things are not intended as a food subsidy but low population areas have higher costs for many things which would otherwise raise food prices. Economically only a fraction of rural aid lowers food prices, but the net effect is significant.
Ex: http://www.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/ yes these things are not intended as a food subsidy but low population areas have higher costs for many things which would otherwise raise food prices. Economically only a fraction of rural aid lowers food prices, but the net effect is significant.
Are you talking about farm subsidies? because there are plenty of those in Europe also.
Europe has twice the US population and less than half the farm subsides per captia. I am not sure about the indirect farm subsides which as I said may a huge difference by for example artificially lowering property tax rates.
Europe spends 59 bln euros on agro subsidies per year http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/
The US spends about 20 bln $....
The US spends about 20 bln $....
There are a lot of ways of slicing these numbers, but the 59 bln vs 20 bln figures are not direct comparisons as they are counting different things.
Still nobody tops Japan per capita in direct subsides as they have USD$46.5 billion in subsidies, and a population of ~126 million.
PS: It's really hard to get a single subsidy number as laws are designed so things can be presented in many different ways. AKA, US calls something specific an income tax while excluding social security.
Still nobody tops Japan per capita in direct subsides as they have USD$46.5 billion in subsidies, and a population of ~126 million.
PS: It's really hard to get a single subsidy number as laws are designed so things can be presented in many different ways. AKA, US calls something specific an income tax while excluding social security.
Local purchasing power in Denmark is clearly lower than US, not higher. And it's the same for practically all of Europe.
Purchasing power is more evenly distributed, though, i.e. the poorest have better purchasing power.
By OECD purchasing power comparison, Denmark is 26 % more expensive than U.S. And workers have, on average, 15 % lower wages in Denmark.
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CPL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w...
Purchasing power is more evenly distributed, though, i.e. the poorest have better purchasing power.
By OECD purchasing power comparison, Denmark is 26 % more expensive than U.S. And workers have, on average, 15 % lower wages in Denmark.
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CPL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w...
>Purchasing power is more evenly distributed, though, i.e. the poorest have better purchasing power.
This is a common misconception, the poor in the US are as rich or richer than the middle class in the EU.
https://mises.org/blog/poor-us-are-richer-middle-class-much-...
This is a common misconception, the poor in the US are as rich or richer than the middle class in the EU.
https://mises.org/blog/poor-us-are-richer-middle-class-much-...
I followed your link, but it does not support your summary. It is arguing about one specific point (the 60% point) with no discussion on where people actually are. For instance, the 1/3 "poor" in the US could earn 1$/year and it would not invalidate the discussion, but it would clearly invalidate your summary (and the title of the blog post).
I don't think you quoted the wages correctly? The Wikipedia OECD stats are in PPP, not gross.
Also, while you sort of mention it, I think using averages when the distribution is clearly skewed is a really bad practice. It doesn't help us develop intuition on how things are for most people.
Also, while you sort of mention it, I think using averages when the distribution is clearly skewed is a really bad practice. It doesn't help us develop intuition on how things are for most people.
Yes, averages skew things, but then the wage figures are before taxation, which skews things even more... but as I mentioned, when you take transfers into account, the lowest income people are better off in Denmark, also when buying food.
It's just a matter of taste and not quality, but traditional Danish food is not something my palate will ever appreciate
"Plus, much of organic food theory is total pseudoscientific bunk."
There tends to be more than one angle on organic food
1. It's more nutritious than non-organic cultivation
2. It's more flavourful
3. It's less damaging to the environment
I can't speak for the veracity of reasons 2 or 3 (although, anecdotally, supermarket organic produce seems just as bland and tasteless than the non-organic variety), but reason 1 was challenged some years ago (2008) by an independent study. The study was commissioned by the UK's Food Standards Agency. An overview:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120206100416/htt...
The final report: Systematic review of differences in nutrient content of organically and conventionally produced food
http://tna.europarchive.org/20100929190231/http://www.food.g...
There tends to be more than one angle on organic food
1. It's more nutritious than non-organic cultivation
2. It's more flavourful
3. It's less damaging to the environment
I can't speak for the veracity of reasons 2 or 3 (although, anecdotally, supermarket organic produce seems just as bland and tasteless than the non-organic variety), but reason 1 was challenged some years ago (2008) by an independent study. The study was commissioned by the UK's Food Standards Agency. An overview:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120206100416/htt...
The final report: Systematic review of differences in nutrient content of organically and conventionally produced food
http://tna.europarchive.org/20100929190231/http://www.food.g...
That's because there are no proven systemic benefits to organic. It is sometimes a signal for higher quality growers, but almost every organic cropping system could have higher safety and sustainability by adding some conventional inputs.
>Plus, much of organic food theory is total pseudoscientific bunk.
I agree that the idea of Frankenfood is hysteria. My fear of GMO's is due to my distrust of Monsanto, their near monopoly position in the global food supply, the legal tactics they use to bankrupt farmers for having the unmitigated gall to unwittingly use Monsanto seeds that blew onto their farm, and their regulatory capture of the FDA. There is a revolving door of former politicians they employ.
It's also unconscionable how they're able to ram through legislation that removes labeling of foods that are GMO's. Even if someone has an irrational fear of GMO's, they should still have the right to know the origin of their foods. Logic clearly dictates that the rights of the many outweigh the avarice of the few. God forbid they should try to educate the public on their safety or be open and transparent about their products.
I agree that the idea of Frankenfood is hysteria. My fear of GMO's is due to my distrust of Monsanto, their near monopoly position in the global food supply, the legal tactics they use to bankrupt farmers for having the unmitigated gall to unwittingly use Monsanto seeds that blew onto their farm, and their regulatory capture of the FDA. There is a revolving door of former politicians they employ.
It's also unconscionable how they're able to ram through legislation that removes labeling of foods that are GMO's. Even if someone has an irrational fear of GMO's, they should still have the right to know the origin of their foods. Logic clearly dictates that the rights of the many outweigh the avarice of the few. God forbid they should try to educate the public on their safety or be open and transparent about their products.
Monsanto and "near monopoly position in the global food supply"? That's really, really distorted.
Monsanto revenues are 15 billion USD, global food supply market is 7800 billion USD. Monsanto, including all its non-food-related businesses, is about 0.2 % of global food supply business.
"Organic" food business revenue, also just a niche globally, is about 5 times as big as Monsanto's revenue.
>legal tactics they use to bankrupt farmers for having the unmitigated gall to unwittingly use Monsanto seeds that blew onto their farm
That is a claim widely spread by Monsanto's adversaries, but it is simply not true. The case usually referred to is Monsanto Canada vs. Schmeiser, and it very clearly wasn't about "unwittingly" using Monsanto seeds. Schmeiser didn't even make such a claim in court, it's just a fabrication by anti-GMO activists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
Monsanto revenues are 15 billion USD, global food supply market is 7800 billion USD. Monsanto, including all its non-food-related businesses, is about 0.2 % of global food supply business.
"Organic" food business revenue, also just a niche globally, is about 5 times as big as Monsanto's revenue.
>legal tactics they use to bankrupt farmers for having the unmitigated gall to unwittingly use Monsanto seeds that blew onto their farm
That is a claim widely spread by Monsanto's adversaries, but it is simply not true. The case usually referred to is Monsanto Canada vs. Schmeiser, and it very clearly wasn't about "unwittingly" using Monsanto seeds. Schmeiser didn't even make such a claim in court, it's just a fabrication by anti-GMO activists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
You are right on both accounts. In general, there's a lot of distortion concerning this issue as any google search mentioning Monsanto inevitably turns up a lot of natural food blogs parading as authoritative sources. We're going to need this type of technology if we are truly going to become an interplanetary species and endure the negative consequences of climate change.
I just have a marked distrust of any organization that employs regulatory capture as evident as Monsanto.
The point about food labeling still stands though. It's true that a little information in the hands of the ignorant can be dangerous, but that is the cost of living in a free and democratic society and individual choice. Putting corporate interests over the freedom of information rarely, if ever, works out well. Monsanto has the resources and the former politicians to do effective public outreach and education. That they would rather use legislation makes them seem, at best, not worthy of trust.
I just have a marked distrust of any organization that employs regulatory capture as evident as Monsanto.
The point about food labeling still stands though. It's true that a little information in the hands of the ignorant can be dangerous, but that is the cost of living in a free and democratic society and individual choice. Putting corporate interests over the freedom of information rarely, if ever, works out well. Monsanto has the resources and the former politicians to do effective public outreach and education. That they would rather use legislation makes them seem, at best, not worthy of trust.
> I visited Denmark from San Francisco in 2014. The food there was atrociously expensive. ATROCIOUS.
I live in Austria where food is also expensive and most is organic but that's mainly because there is a 20% VAT tax on it, not because production is that much more expensive.
I do think that our vegetables are tastier than in the US but I doubt it has anything to do with organic.
I live in Austria where food is also expensive and most is organic but that's mainly because there is a 20% VAT tax on it, not because production is that much more expensive.
I do think that our vegetables are tastier than in the US but I doubt it has anything to do with organic.
I don't know how about Austria, but in many European countries there's a separate VAT rate for raw unprocessed food. E.g. in Poland, regular VAT rate is 23%, while it is 8% or 5% for basic food items like bread, milk, butter, meat etc.
In the UK, most food and drink is zero-rated for VAT. Exceptions include snacks, confectionery, crisps, alcohol etc.
In Denmark it's 25% VAT on everything.
It still is, at least in Copenhagen. The only affordable food are hotdog, I have no idea why.
Eating cheap in CPH entails a healthy, balanced diet of hotdogs, pay-by-weight candy, and döner kebabs :)
[deleted]
And exactly agriculture is one of the areas that the new government have changed a lot. It was growing into a big scandal around when this article was written, that cost the agriculture minister of that government her job.[0] So between when I am writing this post, and when Jørgensen said that in 2015, there have been three different agriculture ministers.
Given the new relaxed rules by the ministry on farmers and what they can do to the soil, I think it is safe to say that the ambitious plan that the article refers to has pretty much been scrapped.
The article is very out of date right now, but it was even out of date at the time it was written. The plan was published in January 2015. The general election was in early June 2015. The new agriculture law came into effect around February 2016 (but its contents was known by December 2015).
[0] https://www.thelocal.dk/20160229/danish-pm-announces-cabinet...