A message from the organic food comunity

Organic food v/s food grown with chemicals, any opinions?
vid- http://www.storewars.org/flash/ [lol]
Seriously though, I prefer organically grown food myself, but I don't exclusively eat it. Should I?

That's pretty hilarious. I prefer organic food too, but it can be more expensive. I see no reason not to eat it, aside from cost issues. It's less pesticides and/or insecticides in your body. There is the arguement that it's not cost and power effective on a world wide basis, but nothing is.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

Organic farming is harmful to the environment (inefficient land use), and the financial cost to health benefit ratio is highly questionable. A budget life extensionist would do far better to invest the premium required for organic produce in supplments with known powerful preventative benefits, such as Omega 3 fatty acids, vitamin D, folate, etc.

---BrianW

Organic farming would set the price of food to a more supply/demand curve. Basically, the cost of organic food is higher because it's harder to do. That's fair. It's fair to be allowed to spend more money to get a rarer type of food.

You want to look at inefficient land use? Look at the beef industry.

The idea of "regular" farming as truly effcient in any way is upsetting and offensive to any serious ecologically minded life extensionist. The only way that organic farming could be considered harmful to the enivronment is indeed larger use of land. You get a much more nutritionally beneficial product by putting more time and energy, and less pesticides into it - this seems fairly self explanitory. I'm not some green flag waver - I have studied horticulture at the unversity level and know first hand about agricultural toxins and their potentcy, having applied many myself at a time. Many are known carcinogens. A budget life extensionist might do far better buying good quality organic produce that contains more vitamins and minerals in the first place, thus reducing the need for any extra pill popping we all love to do so much.

Organic farming is harmful to the environment (inefficient land use), and the financial cost to health benefit ratio is highly questionable.  A budget life extensionist would do far better to invest the premium required for organic produce in supplments with known powerful preventative benefits, such as Omega 3 fatty acids, vitamin D, folate, etc.

---BrianW

exactly. Also I've seen numerous studies that show that in many cases organic produce is less healthy and more toxic than non organic produce.

The idea of "regular" farming as truly effcient in any way is upsetting and offensive to any serious ecologically minded life extensionist

Sorry to disagree a little here, but I doubt we would be able to feed nearly 7 billion people if we suddenly resorted to all organic farming. It was doable when the planet held only 2 billion, but nowadays it would be extremely difficult. Also, despite all the chemicals in "inorganic food" the average human lifespan keeps increasing. (Ok, that could be due mostly to better late life care, but you probably get my point)

True. There would have to be price discrimination. The poor have to purchase inorganic food, because there is not enough organic food. But that's solved with a supply/demand curve.

It's the waste (like the beef I mentioned) that's really the problem. The USA could feed an additional 800 million people if they reallocated resources away from beef production.

Organic farming would set the price of food to a more supply/demand curve. Basically, the cost of organic food is higher because it's harder to do. That's fair. It's fair to be allowed to spend more money to get a rarer type of food.

Don't get me wrong. Just because I say I personally don't like organic farming, and think that people who do are mostly wasting their money, doesn't mean I don't think people shouldn't be free to do it. I'm not a collectivist, and I generally don't care how inefficiently people use land they own. But since advocates of organic farming so often are collectivists, and do presume to tell other people how best to use their land, I couldn't resist turning it around!

You want to look at inefficient land use? Look at the beef industry.

I couldn't agree more. And there you have an example of something that's not only inefficient, but actually bad for your health.

---BrianW

Sorry to disagree a little here, but I doubt we would be able to feed nearly 7 billion people if we suddenly resorted to all organic farming. It was doable when the planet held only 2 billion, but nowadays it would be extremely difficult. Also, despite all the chemicals in "inorganic food" the average human lifespan keeps increasing. (Ok, that could be due mostly to better late life care, but you probably get my point)

I get your point, mind, and agree with you. I mentioned that organic farming was more intensive economically and land-wise, and definately the whole world couldn't eat on it. But a large portion of the world barely eats anyway. We're not looking to end global hunger through organic farming, I didn't mention that. And I agree, that would bear near impossible in most nations. That was not my point.

And the average lifespan increase is due to many, many factors as you know and I hold poor food quality in general well below better medical care, quality of life, etc, in those reasons.

Organic farming would set the price of food to a more supply/demand curve. Basically, the cost of organic food is higher because it's harder to do. That's fair. It's fair to be allowed to spend more money to get a rarer type of food.

Don't get me wrong. Just because I say I personally don't like organic farming, and think that people who do are mostly wasting their money, doesn't mean I don't think people shouldn't be free to do it. I'm not a collectivist, and I generally don't care how inefficiently people use land they own. But since advocates of organic farming so often are collectivists, and do presume to tell other people how best to use their land, I couldn't resist turning it around!

You want to look at inefficient land use? Look at the beef industry.

I couldn't agree more. And there you have an example of something that's not only inefficient, but actually bad for your health.

---BrianW

I'm curious as to if organic farms are simply advertising the benefits of their product, and don't actually "tell other people how best to use their land". If "they" had their way, then there would probably be no suburbs either, arguably the most inefficient waste of space and resources of all. [wis]

Very interesting guys, I never even considered the veiwpoint on land efficiency. I think I'll continue eating both organic and inorganic foods for now, (as long as darth potato doesn't find out). I would deffinatly argue that 'waste of space' is only due to an overpopulated planet, but that is a whole other hill of beans.

I somewhat regret bring up the collectivist space efficiency issue because it sidetracked us from the question of whether organic food is actually healthier. As individualists, who cares how much land it uses if it's healthier and we can afford it!

If anyone has any DATA showing organic food is healthier, please bring it on. Arguments like "obviously pesticides are bad" don't cut it. It's not obvious that pesticides ingested in quantities found on washed food are signficantly more unhealthy than all the natural toxic compounds inside plants. Aflatoxin anyone?

---BrianW

To gain greater land efficiency (yield) you must mix different plants next to each other to keep insects away. I think it was like onions with squash, hot peppers with turnip greens, muster plants with okra. I don’t remember the exact formula but this was one of the ways my parents practiced organic farming. They mixed beans with corn so that when the corn stock grew, the bean plant grew up the stock. This made it easier to pick the beans! They used crop rotation, because one plant took nutrients out of the soil, but another plant would put the nutrients back in. The only “fertilizer” they used was horse manure. As for toxins, don’t eat the leaves of rhubarb plants, never eat or taste the milk from a milkweed plant, or eat apple seeds, there are always poisons to watch out for.
We also made rabbit stew, turtle soup, squirrel dumplings, venison, and sassafras tea.
In animal/dairy class, I was told it took 8 lbs. of grain to make one pound of beef, 2 lbs. of grain to make one pound of chicken, 4 lbs. of grain to make one pound of pig. That is something to think about when buying meat. [lol]

In animal/dairy class, I was told it took 8 lbs. of grain to make one pound of beef, 2 lbs. of grain to make one pound of chicken, 4 lbs. of grain to make one pound of pig. That is something to think about when buying meat

I heard those numbers were quite a bit higher. But maybe I was looking at calories/calories or protein/protein.

2 lbs of grain to make a lb of chicken sounds off. 1 lb of corn gives roughly 1580 kcal and 1 lb of chicken gives (roughly) 800 kcal. That sounds too efficient to be true.

Maybe it was 3 lbs. of grain for chicken. This was back in 1996 when I took the course, so it was based from memory. I don't farm. Commercial chickens don't eat corn; they eat food pellets made with nutrients, vitamins, etc.

Buying all organic would bankrupt me... I can just about afford all the vegetables i buy every week =/

I somewhat regret bring up the collectivist space efficiency issue because it sidetracked us from the question of whether organic food is actually healthier.  As individualists, who cares how much land it uses if it's healthier and we can afford it! 

If anyone has any DATA showing organic food is healthier, please bring it on.  Arguments like "obviously pesticides are bad" don't cut it.  It's not obvious that pesticides ingested in quantities found on washed food are signficantly more unhealthy than all the natural toxic compounds inside plants.  Aflatoxin anyone?

---BrianW

Arguments like "things are fine just the way they are" shouldn't cut it either. There are many reasons pesticides are "bad", which I shouldn't really have to bring up. Organophosphates have harmed many people. There are chronic, long-term exposure test to such toxins. I have read some from a chemical technician's point of view, some chems with incredibly low LD50's. Not exactly life-extending, from the user (eater's) end. Can anyone argue that it is?

And it is a good reason we swayed away from the previous argument, because there ARE well-known facts and data about soil erosion as intensive farming techniques wears away natural soil balances and nutrient counts (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium as well as micro-nutrients), not to mention fertilizer leeching into local watersheds, water tables, etc. Showing that indeed the idea of regular, or chemical farms is non-sustainable and thus not of long-term feasibility. So, like I said earlier, "The idea of 'regular' farming as truly effcient in any way is upsetting and offensive to any serious ecologically minded life extensionist". But most of the ideas about life-extension are pretty selfish of humanity anyways, so why change that trend.

That would be greatly off topic, so let's try to stick to the idea at hand.

Organic food 'proven' healthier - http://news.bbc.co.u...tech/588589.stm

Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts - http://www.medicalne...hp?newsid=10587

New research proves organic milk is higher in vitamins and antioxidants than non-organic milk - http://www.soilassoc...tles/1B47E.HTMl

Organophosphates, anyone? - http://www.emedicine...d/topic1660.htm

Organophosphates Implicated In Mad Cow Disease - http://www.laleva.cc...ticide_bse.html

I realize these are not pubmed sites, but I hope this will suffice as data.

Well, I only eat organic meat, except on special occassions

I'm really in love with organic avocados. I'm starting to think they're the perfect food.

This isn't in response to one person...it's a general response to anyone anti-organic...

So let me get this straight...to sum up some of the anti-organic points made here.

1. If organic methods were used, the planet would starve.

2. Until someone shows study data directly proving a correlation between consistent lifelong pesticide/argo-chemical exposure and poor health, there's no reason to avoid such a scenario. Nobody seems alarmed about those daily "small" doses going into babies and young children.

3. The points about cross-contamination of water supplies with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides are not a concern.

[huh] WTF?

So my quick thoughts on those points...

1. Any "scientific" proof of this? Also, given a flawed toxic system and a supposedly flawed organic system - it's best to defend the toxic system instead of improving the organic one? So all the brilliant scientists can't figure out a way to grow food without producing toxic swill? OK - whatever.

And also - people currently starve for political reasons, not because of some earthly lack of food. You can be "hungry" and not starve. You can have an "unbalanced diet" and not starve. If somebody is starving on this planet right now, it's because the world governments don't care about them or some political/military entity is actively trying to harm them. Usually it's both reasons. If you took all the money Sadam and the UN stole in the oil for food program - you probably could have fed Iraq and a few other countries as well. If you took the money for one cruise missle...so on and so on.

November 2005 - In Washington, big agribusiness interests are pressing to cut funds for programs that help farmers protect water and wildlife and deny food stamp benefits to 300,000 people in low-income families, rather than accept tighter annual limits in crop subsidies to large farming operations. In Geneva, global trade negotiations aimed at boosting the prospects of the poorest nations are deadlocked, largely because status quo commodity interests in the U.S. and Europe are fighting efforts to trim farm subsidies and lower trade-constricting agricultural tariffs.

November 2004 - The data from 2003 suggests that wealthy agribusinesses continue to collect the bulk of taxpayer subsidies, hurting small farms. -- Taxpayers doled out $16.4 billion in farm subsidies last year, a 27 percent increase over 2002, for a total since 1995 of $131 billion, according to the latest update of EWG's Farm Subsidy Database.

2. Fact – most people in the US are getting increasingly assaulted with harmful chemicals and carcinogens.

A super simple example of our daily poisioning is Teflon. PFOA is toxic at low levels and is found in more than 90% of Americans (thanks Dupont). (http://www.newmediae...acid_teflon.htm)

And more "info" to illustrate our daily poisoning…

January 2003 - This is the most comprehensive study ever conducted of multiple chemical contaminants in humans. -- Blood and urine from nine people were tested for 210 chemicals that occur in consumer products and industrial pollution. We found an average of 91 industrial compounds, pollutants, and other chemicals in the nine volunteers.

July 2005 - A benchmark investigation of industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides in umbilical cord blood -- Though scientists once thought that the womb largely protected developing babies, a new study of umbilical cord blood from newborns found an extensive array of industrial chemicals, pesticides and other pollutants. Ten newborns averaged 200 contaminants, and 209 pollutants had never before been detected in cord blood.

Given this constant and relentless assault against you and your health by "efficient" living – It's simply "common sense" that greater emphasis should be placed on removing as many chronic contaminants as possible, not pump them in every time you open your mouth. Defending the practice of increasing efficiency while decreasing health is extreemly shortsighted.

3. Use the response to #2 above to also answer this one as well. If you loose air, you’ll die in minutes - water, you’ll die in days. You will NEVER even come close to 150 years old as long as you let the "quest for profits" turn both of those into a toxic waste dump.

OK – I can understand not being able to afford organic. But that brings about an "It's the best I can do right now" position. What I don't get is the seemingly anti-organic knee jerk reaction and subsequent defense of a toxic process that does not have your longevity in mind.

The LEAST you can say about the organic industry is that it's filled with people focused on a "do no harm" approach to the environment and their body. A position that compliments a "life extension" point of view. It should get resounding respect from people on this board, not disdain.

Complacency will make victims of us all. As of October 2005, Big Agro and paid off politicians have already started to weaken the purity of real "organic" production (note how the revisions all share the common theme of hiding the action from the public)...

Despite massive efforts by thousands (over 320,000!) of organic farmers, consumers, industries, and activists, the OTA Amendment to the Organic Foods Production Act passed in a closed-door, Leadership-only Agriculture-Appropriations Conference Committee on Friday, October 28, 2005.
As passed, the amendment allows:
• Numerous synthetic food additives and processing aids, including over 500 food contact substances, to be used in organic foods without public review.
• Young dairy cows to continue to be treated with antibiotics and fed genetically engineered feed prior to being converted to organic production.
• Loopholes under which non-organic agricultural ingredients could be substituted for organic ingredients without any notification of the public based on emergency decrees.

kevin k wrote:

2. Until someone shows study data directly proving a correlation between consistent lifelong pesticide/argo-chemical exposure and poor health, there's no reason to avoid such a scenario. Nobody seems alarmed about those daily "small" doses going into babies and young children.

This is not rational. I can pick any of a thousand daily hazards from diesel soot to cosmic rays and accuse you of not caring about your children because you expose them to it. Like, "How dare you expose your children to bacteria in manure used to grow organic food?" The question is not whether exposing people to trace amounts of pesticides or manure is a good idea. The question is whether the cost of mitigating a hazard is reasonable. Otherwise I can take the same money and use it to mitigate some other greater hazard. This requires some kind of quantitative judgement of what the level of risk is. Observing that a risk exists is not enough.

Similarly, if it is true that some organic produce has a higher nutrient density than non-organic produce, is that just physical density, or DENSITY PER DOLLAR? If not the latter, then I'm actually getting less nutrition for my food dollar with organic produce. Witness the comment from CR practitioner Matt where he says he's able to fit more vegetables in his budget by not buying organic. Could he really get the same health benefit by buying a smaller amount of organic produce for the same budget? He'll certainly get less fiber.

I confess that my hostility toward organic produce is partly driven by guilt-by-association. I too often see the same people advocating organic produce pushing rabid luddite agendas by opposing genetic engineering, food irradiation, and modern civilization generally. I'd take organic food advocates more seriously if they would support pest resistance genetic engineering so we wouldn't have to use pesticides in the first place.

---BrianW

Your hostility towards organic produce and most likely them no-good hippie types in general is pretty distressing. I always thought that conservatives had it out for organic produce because it would mean a massive overturning of supermarkets, status quo, etc, where as they would be losing money and possibly control of the agricultural intrastructure. But it's because they're annoying? Does the idea of an electric car spark the same feeling?

As for the luddites, you'll be surprised to know that organic farms employ many modern technologies and aren't throwbacks. They aren't opposed to technology, but to many powerful toxins and heavily chemical fertilization techinques introduced this century that are rendering the earth's soil quite sterile. They aren't chaning themselves to bulldozers and putting up anti stem cell research on their packaging, or breaking textile equipment. Just because something is new, does not mean it is best, as you know. Integrated Pest Management ideas employ a large number of technologies, some simple, many current.

Thank you, Kevink.

I'm hostile for good reason. As just a small sample

http://www.consumerf...m/headline/2643

Covering the conference, the Los Angeles Times reported: "[S]ince 1989, when organic-food activists raised a nationwide scare over the pesticide alar in apples, many scientists have seethed quietly at what they perceive as a campaign of scare tactics, innuendo and shoddy science perpetrated by organic food producers and their allies."

Some schemers in the green fringe don't even bother hiding their food-scare game plans. In April 2002, Organic Valley Marketing Director Theresa Marquez described her strategy of hoodwinking the public into thinking organics are always worth their premium prices: "We think it's important that people pay more for food," she said. "The question is: 'Will consumers pay more for that?' and 'How can we convince them to do that?'" And citing over-hyped scares like mad cow disease (which has popped up on organic farms too), pesticide residues, and antibiotic resistance, the Organic Trade Association's Katherine DiMatteo told the Times that the success of organic food has: "a lot to do with these food scares."

---BrianW

Here is some information showing that non organic genetically modified corn is more healthly and less toxic than organic corn.

http://www.colorado....tsReduction.htm

Information about mycotoxins found in organic food (corn again)

http://www.colorado....-Mycotoxins.htm

and as an aside I will say I was quite surprised when I saw these two above initial articles enough so that I did a lot more reading on pubmed etc. which largely supported the above.

Before doing that research I had more or less taken for granted that organic food=better.

I'm hostile for good reason.  As just a small sample

http://www.consumerf...m/headline/2643

Covering the conference, the Los Angeles Times reported: "[S]ince 1989, when organic-food activists raised a nationwide scare over the pesticide alar in apples, many scientists have seethed quietly at what they perceive as a campaign of scare tactics, innuendo and shoddy science perpetrated by organic food producers and their allies."

Some schemers in the green fringe don't even bother hiding their food-scare game plans. In April 2002, Organic Valley Marketing Director Theresa Marquez described her strategy of hoodwinking the public into thinking organics are always worth their premium prices: "We think it's important that people pay more for food," she said. "The question is: 'Will consumers pay more for that?' and 'How can we convince them to do that?'" And citing over-hyped scares like mad cow disease (which has popped up on organic farms too), pesticide residues, and antibiotic resistance, the Organic Trade Association's Katherine DiMatteo told the Times that the success of organic food has: "a lot to do with these food scares."

---BrianW

This article talks about schemers in the green fringe, but it's not a fringe anymore, and as much as you may be weary of this coming, it will come, so it's important that you resign to it. There is no need to hoodwink anyone into understanding the higher price of organic food, because the cost of intensive/regular farmed food is artificially reduced to the consumer in comparison. When buying organic, you are buying a more expensive product because you are seeing it's true cost. Intensive farmings harbor ecological costs, a set business structure, years of unfair trade agreements, not to mention the exploitation of produce-rich countries (bananas come to mind) that you are forgetting in our lust for cheap produce prices.If anyone has any studies proving that organic farming is indeed harmful towards our environment, please bring them out. You can't just say you don't trust them because you're so hostile and uneducated about their practices.

If cheap prices and ignoring hippies is all that's important to, then I'm sorry to hear that.

Cuba has converted it's once totally intensive farming operations to 100% organic with total success, after chemical fertilizers were no longer readily availble due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's now against the law to produce food in a non-organic way. Are they luddites? No, they aren't. Cuba is considered by many to be a world-wide leader in biotechnology, and they have a growing, powerful pharmaceutical industry already worth 100$ million.

I see there is no dispute towards any of my earlier points.

and as an aside I will say I was quite surprised when I saw these two above initial articles enough so that I did a lot more reading on pubmed etc. which largely supported the above.

Before doing that research I had more or less taken for granted that organic food=better.

Thanks for the links - Since I know a lot of academics are funded by big corporations, I decided to dig a little (mind you it's only a LITTLE. I can't blow off work to research this more right now ) Note that little to no details or study links were given to back up some of the sweeping statements. What "apple juice"? Was it from some farmer on the side of the road - or did the study authors make it themselves from rotten apples that fell off a truck?

I think that "fungus" argument is an old one (few years at least) and seems to be something the GMO/chemical companies came up with as a scare tactic.

I'm not sure which Pubmed studies you found, but post them here so we can take a look too. I'd love to see some data like that so I can know what to look out for. And also, you know how studies are - follow the money and you'll start to see the conclusion was set before the study even started.

I actually came across several references that showed the opposite result looking at Organic versus conventional (non-GMO).

This page seems solid because all the statements are backed by studies (I'm not registered so I couldn't see the study links):
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/IMIOF.php

Conventional and organic Italian foodstuffs made up of maize, wheat, rice or mixed products were compared for the Fusarium toxins fumonisin and deoxynivalenol. Fumonisin causes cancers of liver or kidney along with blood disorders and pulmonary edema in farm and experimental animals. Deoxynivalenol (vomitosin) causes anorexia at low levels and vomiting at higher levels, and also damages the immune system. Both organic and conventional foods contained the toxins, but more of the conventional foods were contaminated than organic foods. The highest deoxynivalenol levels were found in conventional rice-based foodstuffs while the highest level of fumonisin was found in conventional maize-based foodstuffs. Organic foodstuffs contained consistently lower contamination than conventional foodstuffs [9].

Here's another with PDF information:
http://www.organic-c...tm?articleid=59

In the nine comparative studies that have been published in peer-reviewed journals, mycotoxins were detected 1.5 times more frequently in conventional samples compared to  organic samples. The levels of mycotoxins found in conventional and organic samples can be compared in 20 of the 24 cases. Across the 20 cases, the levels reported in conventional food exceeded those in organic food by a factor of 2.2.

I'm not a big fan of Dr. Weil, but even he does talk about this issue a bit here:
http://www.drweil.com/u/QA/QA351560/

And the page he mentions in that "article" is pretty cool from a "which have the greatest pesticides" point of view:
http://www.foodnews....walletguide.php

And one more thought...I believe the problem is not so much with GMO technology. The problem is the same as with many recent prescription drugs - there's a lot of bribery and corruption that takes place along the way so that LETHAL substances are marketed to doctors/farmers/consumers which then kill your little sister or makes your parents die a painful death (like Vioxx to name one of many). That's what's going on right now. You can defend the merits of a science, while blasting the $$$$ driven people that are assaulting everyone you care about. As Oppenheimer found out the hard way, it's not whether you CAN build the bomb, it's can you trust the people that will use it. Anybody reading this that trusts our current corporation/wall street/government incestuous relationship is really in denial.

Back in 1992, the FDA decreed that genetically engineered foods were no different than conventional foods. Under FDA law, unless a food is "generally regarded as safe" (GRAS), a legal determination, it must be thoroughly tested. Because biotech foods have been determined "GRAS," they undergo no independent safety testing. Instead, government regulators rely on biotech companies to do their own safety tests and also determine themselves if the product in question is GRAS.

Testing biotech crops for their environmental safety is equally lax. It is up to the USDA to ensure that genetically modified crops are ecologically safe. The New York Times recently reported that the agency has not rejected a single application for a biotech crop and that many scientists say "the department has relied on unsupported claims and shoddy studies by the seed companies."

mitkat wrote:

Cuba has converted it's once totally intensive farming operations to 100% organic with total success, after chemical fertilizers were no longer readily availble due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's now against the law to produce food in a non-organic way. Are they luddites? No, they aren't. Cuba is considered by many to be a world-wide leader in biotechnology, and they have a growing, powerful pharmaceutical industry already worth 100$ million.

[lol] [lol] [lol] [lol]

Reminds me of how in the 1970s I used to hear people upholding Albania as an agricultural model for the world. Funny how the world's leading agricultural technology centers also lead the technology race to convert 1950s era automobiles into boats bound for Italy and Florida. [tung]

Some Canadian relatives of mine just came back from Cuba wickedly sick from food they ate there. Must be all those modern agricultural practices.

---BrianW

I would probably eat more organic food was it not for the extra cost. That being said I do grow and catch a lot of organic food on my own.

mitkat wrote:

Cuba has converted it's once totally intensive farming operations to 100% organic with total success, after chemical fertilizers were no longer readily availble due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's now against the law to produce food in a non-organic way. Are they luddites? No, they aren't. Cuba is considered by many to be a world-wide leader in biotechnology, and they have a growing, powerful pharmaceutical industry already worth 100$ million.

[lol] [lol] [lol] [lol]

Reminds me of how in the 1970s I used to hear people upholding Albania as an agricultural model for the world. Funny how the world's leading agricultural technology centers also lead the technology race to convert 1950s era automobiles into boats bound for Italy and Florida. [tung]

Some Canadian relatives of mine just came back from Cuba wickedly sick from food they ate there. Must be all those modern agricultural practices.

---BrianW

Thanks for ignoring all my points, yet again. It proves to me further that you do not know what you're talking about, and are essentially ignorant of organic food, it's practices, and the negative economic and evironmental impact of intensive farming on a global scale. This isn't a debate about Cuba's political ideals or social environment, but if you can only rebut on what you know, that's fine. I'm satisfied knowing things will change.

I am Canadian, and have family going to Cuba in two weeks. I'll let you know how much better the food tastes, because it looks like you're never going to find out [lol] [wis]