Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by EDD:
*promote

Jeez. Biased much? They're missing the point.

Most of our produce and vegetables come from outside the USA from countries like China, Costa Rica, Brazil, etc. That stuff you can buy in any conventional supermarket like Walmart or Target. Now compare the ripeness and taste of THAT food (which is commonly available) to organic food. That's where the difference is and where the comparison should be made.

Food that is picked before it's ripe, shipped frozen across the atlantic, and sits on a shelf can not be as good as organic, locally grown food because the food did not have the time to absorb the nutrients from the ground.

Plus, they're putting scientists against malnourished pot heads. Hardly a fair debate here. Entertaining at best, but it's probably a good idea to not get into a debate about organic foods where your information is coming from a biased comedy show.

My argument isn't necessarily against their arguments (i.e. nutrition, etc.) it's that P&T disguise their sources/experts as, well, unbiased, which they clearly are NOT.

They have no problem at all telling the viewer what the biases are of the panel of others who are in support of organic foods.

Two points they did not address is 1) Knowledge of the food source and the peace of mind that comes with this and 2) Supporting LOCAL farmers. Yes, they addressed the whole "small farmer" thing, but not the local farmer. By supporting your local farmer you are supporting your local economy, simply put.

>> ^Enzoblue:
I went back through and I'm pretty sure that each time they do the organic/non-organic taste test, they put the non-organic on a blue plate and the organic on a red. Blue always gets the most play for goodness.


No, they switched it up between the tomatoes and the apples, I believe.

This is bullshit. Things happen. If he was under 10 then that's different. Kids will eat what they want.. when they want. People need to take care of the things they can in life, absolutely. I am not for something like this being regulated by any sort of government.
Cheap food=unhealthy food. Face it. Coupons are almost all for unhealthy food. Make the change there and get kids information on healthy eating habits. Ever purchase organic food or buy vegetables?? It is going to cost more to do that. I hate this. I am up voting it for inspiring me to be angry as hell. Good sift.

I don't quite get how organic foods vs non organic is connected to social sciences?

He was talking about "organic foods" too, not just social sciences. And I study humanities, and it's basically all bullshit. Lots of theories, but no concrete evidence in any direction. This is what makes it different from, ahem, "real" science, where there are actual objective truths that can be found.

*promote

I don't understand most of this economic stuff because I've never put time into trying to understand it. However, I also don't understand how people who have made a living off of trying to understand it can so often be so completely wrong. How does that work? How is it that people who fail so horribly end up so rich?

Shouldn't we all put our effort into producing something useful to humanity in the most efficient way possible? If someone else is willing to do crap work like tech support cheaper than I am, shouldn't I let them and then do something else useful instead?

Why do people invest in things that they don't understand? Why do people invest in things that they don't think are going to be productive? Why do people feel like they are owed something when they've made a risky investment and lost all of it? Couldn't they have invested in the production of food instead? Or in the development of new technologies to make the production of food more efficient? If the economy goes to shit and people can't afford to buy all this organic crap anymore if there's no way to produce enough of it to feed everyone who needs food, what's going to happen? Will people live shit lives in the rest of their lives so they can continue to eat organic food instead of buying food that can be produced in bulk which will allow them to still be able to afford their house?

I just don't get it... I'd really like to read about some basics of economy so I understand this crap better. Anyone have any recommendations? Something that doesn't give me anyone's opinion but just gives me a factual analysis?

I would agree - except to say that it may not be economically viable for everyone to consistently spend an extra $8.50 on meat pizzas all the time, and in that case there would be an issue of access to healthier foods (as far as pizza is concerned, I suppose it's relative). I know people who say they would eat more organic foods if they were cheaper, which may or may not be bullshit, but we'll never really know.

It's easy enough and addicting enough to eat fats and carbs, and if people out there are willing to shell out their savings to eat that way, then there should be no need to subsidize those things. On the other hand, access to broccoli et. al. is a health issue, and something that more people should be able to consider without consulting their checkbooks.

In the end we can't force feed veggies to people, but at least we won't be forcing them to opt for the dollar menu because they are trying to make ends meet.


In reply to this comment by MINK:
Are you saying that if fat and carbs weren't subsidised, people would eat healthier?

Because somehow, i really really doubt that. I think people like eating shit. It's called temptation and gluttony, it's written about in many books thousands of years old.

I am vegetarian. If i go to a pizzeria, my friends happily spend 50% extra to get meat on their pizza. I am quite sure that if the meat pizzas were $10 and the vegetarian pizzas were $1.50 they would still buy the meat pizza.



In reply to this comment by blahpook:
>> ^MINK:
nah man, let's just ask the marketplace what it thinks and then do that.


The fact that an over-processed candy bar is cheaper compared to something relatively fresh from the ground - cauliflower for example - doesn't seem to make much sense when taking into consideration labor and processing and packaging, and Pollan's argument is that the best way to account for this difference is by looking at what the government subsidizes.

When the Farm Bill subsidizes resources mainly concerned in fat and carb production (corn, soy, wheat - and, indirectly, meat and milk), naturally, more farmers will move in that direction, flooding the market with more of these cheap goods, typically making them even more affordable. The end result is a fat America, sadly enough.

Affordability combined with the addictive qualities of a lot of these foods (sugars from corn, fats from soy) makes the market choice work in favor of the subsidies and the lobbyists who support them. Until that changes, there's always going to be more people at the Fatburger than the Farmer's Market.

^whatever he may have said, at several points in the video his words were dripping with prejudice.

And don't even get me started on his "moral foundations theory" of human innateness:

1. Care for others, protecting them from harm
2. Fairness, Justice, treating others equally.
3. Loyalty to your group, family, nation
4. Respect for tradition and legitimate authority.
5. Purity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

the emergence of all of these need to be proved through selection pressures in evolutionary theory, not some bullsh*t new age pseudoscience. several of them may be valid, but he is severely perverting the implications they have. here are two examples:

3. Loyalty: most animals have developed a "loyalty" to their kin, precisely because there is a clear biological advantage for animal that is loyal to members of its own family. this is because animals that are related to them have a higher chance of having some of the same genes, and if they guard or protect (are loyal) to animals who are their kin, they are more likely to pass down their genes to further generations. but to take this and think it applies to ones patriotic duty for their country (ala republicans) is just nonsense.

5. Purity: animals have powerful pyschological responses to poisonous/noxious foods developing what is know as taste aversion. again this has a clear biological advantage, those who avoid lethal plants or substances are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. in the talk, he uses an example of "organic foods" that liberals eat. it is just rubbish to try to liken taste aversion to the liberals choice of eating organic foods.

and his 23,000 person questionnaire might have been good for a freshmen-level psychology student, but TED is really dropping the bar of standards for scientific practice if they are sponsoring this quack.

" Homosexuals are funded by the liberal left wing from profits they make selling solar power, hybrids, organic food, cats, art, wine, cheese, travel agencies, hair dressing, pornography, abortions, etc."

Alright, that's the best comment on YouTube.

Some wee comment gems:

I totally agree with your video and there is absoluetly nothing wrong in beeing against the gay movement!

This is a free country and If gays love to make a parate showing of their gay rights...we should also say with our mouths full of what we think about all this bolony.

Good video boy! I am happy to see that we still have a few straight handsome guys in our planet!

Homosexuals are funded by the liberal left wing from profits they make selling solar power, hybrids, organic food, cats, art, wine, cheese, travel agencies, hair dressing, pornography, abortions, etc.

I completely AGREE with Dude Please Help Ban Hpmpsexually

those us of us with guns and religion are not exactly "clinging" to anything. WTF does that snarky comment even mean anyway? Even though I'm a tree-hugging organic-food eating, hemp-wearing liberal, I sometimes don't blame neo-cons for their nasty attitude. With comments like that, who needs rationale? Just be snide and condescending.

Interesting to see the stark difference in the two interviews. Thanks Farhad.

I didn't realize that when I bought organic food, I was supporting facism. :-P

>> ^Farhad2000:
Ah Jonah "I make words mean what I want them to mean" Goldberg.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Jonah-Goldberg-on-Liberal-Fasicism-on-the-Daily-Show
The theory is 1st year college garbage. I agree that left should be criticized but not in such an amateur, misguided, ridiculous way as Goldberg does.

Smibbo, I wouldn't say there's much difference between agribusiness and pharmacorp. And it's just not true that the GMO's have been well tested before release -- I forget which documentary it was that I watched a while back, but it showed how every director of the FDA is a former board member of Monsanto. Pretty convenient, huh? They just wave these things through.

Dag: I totally agree with you, except where you say that organic food production has a lower yield than conventional agriculture. I have personally seen organic crops significantly outperform conventional ones -- organic growing techniques have advanced a lot too! And most conventional soils are now degraded to the point that they are essentially just an inert medium for soil-based hydroponics.

There are some free ebooks by Dr. Raoul Robinson that talk about breeding for pest & disease resistance -- I recommend Return to Resistance as a good starting point. Dr. Raoul is my uncle; we are currently building an open-source breeding foundation that will share seeds and encourage effective low-tech breeding methods.