My problems with factory food are more along the lines of:

Way too much sugar and other chemicals.

Inhumane treatment of animals (cutting beaks off of chickens, keeping animals in very small cages, ....)

Feeding animals food that is not natural for them, or that they are evolved to eat: corn instead of grass for cattle.

Pollution: giant pig urine pools that are so big they form their own hazardous waste site

Pollution: something something something factory farmed salmon

Adulterated food: lots of beef now comes with 5-20% added fluid to add weight and basically rip you off. (See Leo Getz regarding fast food restaurants)

I think the solution is neither to eat vegan or buy organic or buy big farm, but to try and get the entire planet educated and to support birth control. (Educated populations seem to organically/naturally reduce births.)

Jer, your description of urine pools is plenty gruesome, but would the world a cleaner place if that work were spread all over, with even a greater variety of competence at work in its preparation? Being "natural" is not really what we want out of life (or food). We want to live better than our ancestors, even the immediate ones.

And "birth control" ain't worth nuthin'. As you note, fertility plunges with wealth: Telling people they shouldn't make babies is not helpful, and usually not even polite.

The only reason I buy "organic" is that sometimes you can get heritage veggies. I.e. different tomatoes that have a different flavor from what you get get in the store.

They wouldn't survive the normal packing and shipping of commercial vegetables.

Way too much sugar and other chemicals.

I think you're confusing processed food with factory produced fresh food here. I've never seen a sugar laced steak. And when even the FDA says that pesticide residues aren't a problem I wouldn't be too worried about chemicals.

Pollution: giant pig urine pools that are so big they form their own hazardous waste site

As Crid correctly points out, it's only a hazardous waste site because it's been concentrated and contained. This stops it from polluting. If it were not managed and was allowed to run off into rivers, etc from small farms, that would be pollution. On an organic farm, all of that 'hazardous waste' would be going on the crops instead. You have to remember the same amount of waste is going to get produced to provide the same amount of food - where would you prefer it to be?

Pollution: something something something factory farmed salmon

This is pollution how? You've lost me there.

Jim P - that's the only good reason. I do the same sometimes. As long as you don't fool yourself into thinking they're better for you and understand you're paying more for taste, nothing else, that makes perfect sense.

What they mean is "Nice world we've got here, too bad you're living on it."

The day they go after the Gores and the Streisands, I will believe they are serious. In the meantime, it's just hot air, and they claim we have too much of that already. Some people will believe anything, even when evidence shows otherwise. How's that stimulus working for you?

I don't waste, because it's my money. I grow some tomatoes and cucumbers because I want to. Serious farming is hard work that pays poorly. Dad left the family farm for WWII and became an engineer, I'm not going back to less pleasant work for lower and less certain pay.

Organic food is like bottled water - a way to separate those with too much money from it. Or to feed the bugs.

Dad left the family farm for WWII and became an engineer, I'm not going back to less pleasant work for lower and less certain pay.

Sergeant Heather (the most glamourous woman I know) encouraged me to grow vegetables. I found this hilarious. "Heather, I don't farm," I told her.

Amy, I liked growing vegetables - a combination of things that are best when they're fresh picked like salad greens, silverbeet, various herbs, chilies, stuff like that, and some unusual/heritage varieties that I can't buy easily or at all of other stuff - beetroot, garlic, a few varieties of beans. But you have to want to do it. I haven't the last couple of years because I haven't had time and I can get good enough elsewhere. It's fun if you like it and if you like showing off to guests that half the stuff on the table is home-grown, lots of hard work if you don't.

I never fooled myself into thinking I was saving the planet or that it was more nutrititous or safer somehow though. Funnily enough my garden was 100% organic - driven by, in descending order of importance, a) not wanting to poison my cats, b) tight-fistedness, c) laziness to spray. In a small garden that you're not dependent on you can get away with that. Producing food for millions of people is totally different.

Here in rural Mexico, a local girl a couple years ago won an all expenses paid trip to Atlanta to the International Science Fair.

Her project was an insecticide made from a certain type of hot chilies. Crush them, mash them, mix with cane alcohol, then crush some more, then distill the product to get rid of the cane alcohol.

Zucchini is a major item in the diet here. White flies can destroy the crop, and the usual chemicals are extremely dangerous for the workers.

Need I point out this chili spray can be consumed on your food if you wanted???

This spray kills the white flies in minutes, and at a fraction of the cost of commercial sprays.

I guarantee you it will never be used on a large scale, because the chemical companies will get it outlawed, because it hasn't been properly tested.

Some years ago, OGF (Organic Gardening and Farming) has an interview with a retired management person from one of the big companies, Du Pont comes to mind, but that may be wrong.

He said we use a lot of plastics, and to make them economically some cheap way to dispose of the toxic by-products needs to be found.

So, what they do is try the nasty by-products to see what it kills, then sell it to farmers to spray on the foods we are going to eat, distributed evenly across the nation.

He said it would be possible to create non-toxic sprays, but the plastic companies would not be able to make a profit.

I'm convinced that the success of Whole Foods and Fresh Market is more because they are doing a good job of offering foodstuffs that are tasty and high quality, and less because of any philosophical concerns on the part of most of their customers. Fresh Market is making a killing here, and north Alabama isn't exactly a hippie hangout. But Fresh Market doesn't offer much in the way of staples, because they know as well as anyone that Publix can offer the same goods for less.

This whole article is pretty fucking stupid (advisor to Monsanto! I don't care about his other credentials) but really taste and quality are what matter most to me. My roommate and I each buy a veggie box once a week from a small farm. 20 bucks per box. I care about local food, blah blah blah, but my roommate couldn't give a shit about how far her asparagus is driven before it gets to her. She buys the organic veggie box because after you eat real fresh produce, the shit at Safeway (frankly at Whole Foods too) is inedible because the difference is so extreme.

Of course if you eat mostly meat and don't care at all about animal welfare this doesn't really matter to you. I'm not a vegetarian but I really don't understand people who have pets but are OK with eating factory farmed meat and eggs.

I have a tenant here who is into growing organic, baking her own bread, etc. She is a wonderful cook, and her dishes are always delicious. But one thing she has told me - and I don't know if it's true - is that the big food companies like Monsanto have altered the seeds in our fruits and vegetables to where they only produce one generation. Used to be you could save the seeds and grow a new plant that would produce that vegetable.

She buys her seeds online, where you can still get old seeds that have been unaltered and will reproduce. If this is true, it's scary that they would do this to have a monopoly over our food supply. Does anyone know anything about this?

I found this on the seed engineering:

http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/130/1/Heirloom-and-heritage-seeds.html

I'm aware that there's no nutritional difference. My concerns are more in the area of chemical fertilizers polluting water sources and growth hormones and antibiotics used in raising beef, poultry and pork. But that's just me. People should eat whatever makes them happy.

More on how Monsanto is creating genetically altered seeds that terminate after only one use, thereby attempting to control the world's seed supply:

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/GMO/Monsanto/monsanto.html

If I was going to both with gardening, it would be for taste. You simply can't get a decent tomato from a store. Here in Texas, you can't get a decent apple or peach either. I grew up in the north and have picked plenty of apples off of the trees, and what they have in the stores only looks like an apple. While I haven't picked very many peaches from trees (I have 3 peach trees in my yard that produce diddly squat), I have eaten peaches that were picked ripe, and they don't have anything to do with what you buy at a store either (except that the store bought peaches LOOK better).

For another point of view on organic food you can pick up a movie called "Food Inc". You can also pick up a book called "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser or "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan.

I try to buy organic meat for the same reasons as jerry - factory farms treat their animals horribly, feed them things they were not evolved to eat and the meat companies (ie Tysen) treat their employees like absolute garbage.

We don't ask enough questions about our food supply. These people will give you some facts you might not be aware of and a history of our food supply that you will find interesting.

I've not read "In Defense of Food" nor was it the book I was suggesting. I mentioned "The Omnivores Dilemma" which is less of a science based diet suggestion and more about where our food comes from (read...corn). It basically traces the origins of some meals. I don't see how "science" plays into it...just good investigative work.

The Washington Post summarizes:

"In The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan writes about how our food is grown -- what it is, in fact, that we are eating. The book is really three in one: The first section discusses industrial farming; the second, organic food, both as big business and on a relatively small farm; and the third, what it is like to hunt and gather food for oneself. And each section culminates in a meal -- a cheeseburger and fries from McDonald's; roast chicken, vegetables and a salad from Whole Foods; and grilled chicken, corn and a chocolate soufflé (made with fresh eggs) from a sustainable farm; and, finally, mushrooms and pork, foraged from the wild. "

lovelsoul Monsanto doesn't control the world seed supply and these seed types are not in use anywhere. Your tenant is a loon.

I have problems with factory farms in terms of meat, dairy, eggs mostly. My main concerns are the animals not being fed the proper diet or living environment. Commercial eggs are nutitionally inferior with less vitamin content. My mother-in-law raises chickens so I get a dozen a week from her. Her chickens are fed a proper diet and allowed to run around in the yard and scratch in the dirt and eat worms. The eggs are great with very vibrant yolks. I buy and drink raw milk from a local farm. It comes from cows that are all grassfed. I will rarely, if ever drink pastuerized milk because the process damages the fats and nutrients. The government mandates that vitamins be added back in after pastuerization and homogenization, which are all synthetic vitamins. I also try to buy as much of my meats as possible from animals that have been raised and fed the proper diet. It is by far superior to most factory produced meats. There is also next to no risk of E. coli from grassfed beef since the proper diet maintains the proper acidity in the gut and is resistant to the O157 variant that is the food poisoning problem in people. I don't care so much about my fruits and vegetables, but prefer locally grown without chemical fertilizers and pesticides. This is primarily in terms of taste and variety.

this os why I raise my own beef and chicken

BunnyGirl made a good point about eColi...the particular strain we are familiar with (killed many people) only exists within the corn fed cows. Then because of factory farming, if 1 cow has it ALL of them get it (they stand around covered in shit all day). After that if you miss some dirt during the cleaning process, that ecoli gets into the meat. If the meat is then not cooked enough you pass the ecoli on to humans.

Sure - as stated above, the preparation of the beef was the final factor leading to ecoli poisoning, but shouldn't we be asking ourselves if the beef should be infected in the first place??!?! I will vote a big NO on that, personally.

Did you read those links, Mr. Seed? Apparently, my tenant isn't such a loon.

Monsanto, Dow, and others, supported by the Dept of Agriculture, DO hold a patent for controlling "gene expression" and are in the process of developing terminator seeds - good for only one crop, then they become sterile.

They appeared to back off this project around 10 years ago, after public outcry, but the truth is, they never actually stopped, and recently, Monsanto acquired the company that is behind the science of these genetically altered seeds. They appear to have the full backing of the US Government, which may intend to use this as a weapon or bargaining chip with other countries. If we control the seeds, we control the world's food supply.

It's pretty scary, and I really don't doubt this is happening. The science is there, and Monsanto has already been mandating for years that farmers not save seeds, as they have a monopoly over seed production. There have already been several prosecutions, and several lawsuits, as a few brave farmers took on the giant.

Also, a few years ago, when this tenant of mine was talking about these terminator or "sucide" seeds, I happened to have a friend here, who is very well-connected politically and in business. I thought he would laugh, and say she was silly, but he agreed that she was absolutely right. He knew some of the business people highly involved in this deal (including one of Monsanto's lead attornies), though he said it's kept very quiet in Washington. He's not the kind to espouse wild conspiracy theories, so his confirmation lent credibility.

Thing is, lovelysoul, farmers don't have to buy Monsanto's seed - they can just keep saving seed from their own crop like they've always done. They want to buy it because it's better. But Monsanto's license agreement says they're not allowed to save seed and replant it, which is fair enough. It's their intellectual property - if they wanted to sell a lifetime license, then fine, but believe me the price would change if you want to fund the development of better strains by one-off payments. They're only trying to develop terminator seeds because enforcing these agreements is really hard. Most of the people that have been sued have claimed 'accidental' contamination of their crop. If the seeds were non-viable those claims would cease to exist, and the thieves would be obvious.

I would point out too that a lot of the resistance to GM crops round the world is because of the fear of contamination of non-GM crops and/or weeds. Guaranteed sterile seed could allay that fear and open new markets to them. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy.

I am with lovelysoul here...ltw is missing some key points on Monsanto.

Monsanto has many key officials working for the FDA now. That is a blatant conflict of interest. It's like a CEO of a big tobacco company going to work for the ministry of health (or whatever you call it in the states).

Go watch "The World According to Monsanto"...and remember how people never blamed tobacco companies for anything either.

Yes, ltw, it makes sense when they are spending a lot to genetically engineer seeds to withstand pesticides, etc, making it easier for farmers to weed and grow crops. I understand it is their intellectual property, and they would naurally desire to protect it, but a lot of diabolical plots spring from very reasonable ideas. That's how the masses so easily accept what happens before they realize how far things have gone.

Big food, despite its benefits, is not something we want to blindly trust. When there's huge money and political power involved, things tend to turn in their favor over public interest. I think letting Monsanto have terminator seeds is ultimately a very dangerous concept.

I think letting Monsanto have terminator seeds is ultimately a very dangerous concept.

I don't think we should blindly trust either. But it's not a monopoly just because they find a way of making their product single generation. Farmers don't have to buy seed from Monsanto, and if they are not happy with non-viable seed they can save their own (as you were saying they used to - why did they stop? Did the Monsanto mafia turn up on their doorstep and tell them not to?) or buy alternatives. Here in Australia GM crops are very restricted - pretty much Bt cotton and not much else - and I'm sure we'd be happy to sell you wheat, corn, barley, canola seed to break their monopoly if you want. The only reason everyone complains about Monsanto is because they want their products. And because they play pretty hard ball - but most companies do. Apple included.

Karen, the potential health effects are a different story to whether they have established a monopoly. So officials within the FDA don't excite me too much given that way too many people have eaten GM crops for too long for there to be any serious problem. We would know by now. Bear in mind that lots of new varieties bred by traditional cross-breeding get knocked back for toxicity too, the bar should be the same for both.

"We would know by now"

Would we??? Are you sure about that?? That same argument was used against the tobacco companies back in the 70's. Look at second hand smoke...how long did it take before the grumblings of a few groups started to hit the mainstream and then there were finally bans on smoking in bars and restaurants? How many studies were "debunked" and swept under the carpet???

Now there are grumblings of a few groups that GM crops may not be all that great for us. There are very few independent studies and because the FDA is ruled by people who used to work for the companies we will never get them. There are some people who did do some studies that found GM crops to have potential negative health consequences but those researchers were promptly fired.

I think your offer to "break their monopoly" is wonderful...except you can't put your money where your mouth is. Seriously - you have no means to even try let alone actually do it. Monsanto is working towards a monopoly around the world. It's what companies seek to do - grow...but is it really such a good idea? I say no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP6_M_K6MDA&feature=related

Fascinating, Karen. Thanks. Everyone should watch that. What is disturbing is that farmers won't have a choice but to buy from Monsanto if their crops become contaminated and cross-bred with the GM seeds. Already, they are at a disadvantage price-wise. Once they are forced to buy the GM products, because their own seed won't grow or they can't compete, then they'll introduce the terminators. This is all about money.

Did you really use the example of Second-Hand Smoke, Karen? Junk Science at it's best:

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

Ok Wayne...then how about cigarettes as cancer causing (well, more of a very strong correlation, there is no actual causation)? Nobody really bought that either...and I think some people still dispute it.

I am going to say that the jury is out on second hand smoke. Both sides of the story have too much vested interest in the outcome. It certainly isn't as deadly as the militant anti smokers say (they claim that even a whiff of smoke floating past you in the breeze is deadly ugh)...but I also don't think it's harmless. I would certainly prefer having the choice...let smokers have their venues and non-smokers have theirs.

Wow, the amount of paranoia being expressed here is astounding. I eagerly await the stories about Monsanto's black helicopters spraying chemtrails all over our food supply.

I would hardly call it paranoia. I think we should be very careful who we entrust the production of our food to. If you think for a moment that a huge company gives a crap about you or your kids, you're wrong. It's all about the bottom line Cousin Dave...Monsanto brought us Agent Orange and PCBs. Now they own the food supply. Just sayin...!

I'm glad smoking is banned in most indoor places because second-hand smoke is really freaking unpleasant. There's nothing like feeling like you're being forced to breathe through a straw.

The sickest I've ever been was when I worked in a small office with a smoker. I got a cold that wouldn't go away, then turned into bronchitus. My doctor immediately asked me if I'd been smoking -that's what my lungs sounded like. When I told him I'd been working with one, he said that it's even worse than living with a smoker, as your exposure at work, all day long, is even greater than at home.

I hadn't wanted to be demanding and ask her not to smoke around me, but after that, I did. Of course, second-hand smoke is unhealthy. A puff or two probably won't hurt you, but being exposed to it regularly is not a good thing.

And I'm amazed at how unconcerned some of you are about the food supply, and the willingness to let these companies develop a monopoly on seed production, genetically altering them to terminate. Don't you see the power in that? If we run out of natural seeds, Monsanto and the like can charge whatever they want. They will eliminate small farmers in areas like Mexico and many other parts of the world. It won't take long to lose our natural seed supply.

There are seed banks all over the world, lovelysoul. For instance, there's the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, holding millions of seeds from every crop variety imaginable in a deep freeze inside a mountain on an Arctic island:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7217821.stm

This is a new facility, but the idea of seed banks was around long before Monsanto.

That's a relief, Martin, but I can only imagine the pricing and power plays that would occur if we have a shortage. Doomsdayers, like my tenant, are also stockpiling "heritage" seeds because they fear shortages, either from natural disasters or influences of companies like Monsanto.

She claims the terminator seeds are already being sold in many of the fruit/vegetable packets. I don't garden, so I don't know if that's true. My father gardens, but I haven't asked him if his seeds reproduce or if he must buy new ones each year.

Right now, it's a small issue. So what if you must buy new tomato seeds each year? They're cheap and plentiful. But it could be that we are just being lulled into a dependence that's going to bite us eventually. The ability to grow our own food will likely be critical after natural disasters if parts of the country are cut off or food transport fails.

Hmm. Serial thinking...

The biggest seller of "organic" foods in the Southeast is Publix, and they outsell Whole Foods.

The homegrown tomato tastes different because of the time between harvest and table, not synthetic fertilizer. It's the same for citrus; hundreds of complex sugars and alcohols start decomposing when you cut the stem.

Fact: you are allowed to use more chemicals on your plants at home than I was allowed, running an orange grove. You house is also more fatal to more life than my small grove.

About seeds: someone doesn't know the full story. Single-generation seeds are THE way to introduce high-yield plants without their taking over the ecosystem, full stop. It's not possible to confine them because of clueless people carting them around inadvertently and on purpose: "Oh, I'll just have a little garden. What's the harm?" -- and then the pollinators spread things for you, unseen.

There's a hidden issue with food supplies - and that's that people are not exempt from the law of supply and demand just because it's "food".

Society after society has bred itself into starvation, and we are not immune to that just because we have big buildings.

The conversion to fossil fuel brought you abundance beyond the dreams of Utopians. If the conversion away from it isn't handled correctly, you, personally, can starve.

One more thing:

The Plum Pox Virus is being defeated by genetic engineering. The story's here.

Are you against this?

I think they're very different motivations at work. Genetic engineering designed purely to improve crops, and help feed more people, is vastly different from genetic engineering that's undertaken solely to increase profit.

Karen, are you saying that Whole Foods or the local organic farmer does give a crap about me and my kids? What's the diff between them and Monsanto? Aren't they all in it to make money?

"Genetic engineering designed purely to improve crops, and help feed more people, is vastly different from genetic engineering that's undertaken solely to increase profit."

Wow. You can tell the difference? What color is your sky?

Did you even read why genetically-engineered seeds should terminate?

And that's a completely different issue than the whole "feeding more people" idea, where somehow feeding some group who cannot figure out how to do it themselves - above a sustainable level - is seen as a good idea. It's not.

I don't see why vegetable garden seeds need to terminate, or even be genetically engineered. My ancesters have successfully farmed for generations without them.

Perhaps, in big industrial fields, GM seeds may sometimes be necessary, but, judging from the youtube documentary, as well as the link I posted above, that doesn't seem to be Monsanto's objective. They appear (with backing from the US government) to want to sabotage all farming so that all seeds and products must eventually be purchased from them.

Businesses are inherently self-interested. I am in my business, but I also feel that I'm giving the customer something of value that they truly desire - a great vacation or place to live. Whole Foods, for instance, certainly fulfills a demand for organic food products, whether the majority finds that reasonable or not.

But I don't conspire to have a monopoly, nor do most businesses. As much as we all dislike our competitors, there's a point you don't go to put them out of business, especially if that point is against the broader public interest.

Having heritage seeds - and fruits and vegetables already grown from heritage seeds - readily available will be crucial if we face a natural or man-made disaster, or total breakdown of our food supply. Everyone thinks it can't happen, until it does. Having lived through hurricanes, and now a huge oil spill, which threatens my livelihood and the whole ecology of the area in which I live, I don't find it unreasonable to be prepared for unknown events, including growing my own food. If that became necessary for protracted periods, yet the seeds would only produce one generation, it could be devastating.

Hey, just don't miss the point: genetically engineered plants are safer if they cannot reproduce on their own.

And I don't see someone coming to you at gunpoint to confiscate your ordinary seeds.

Missed the thing about the plum virus, too, did we?

No, I couldn't completely read the plum virus, as there's some kind of twitter box in the way. Couldn't figure out how to move it. Did see the recipe though.

It's not about coming at gunpoint for seeds, Rad. It's about what is already being grown in the area being able to reproduce if we were to become isolated long-term by a major natural disaster or terrorist attack.

Assuming stores were even open after a disaster (or whether there would be fuel to get there), if all of the seeds are manufactured by Monsanto and they're terminator seeds - and most of our current produce (or what is left of it) is being generated from those seeds - we wouldn't be able to grow food for long.

Living along the gulf coast, I've always felt comfortable that at least we wouldn't starve, as we would always have fresh fish to eat, but now, that doesn't seem like such a sure thing either...contaminated fish and vegetable plants that can't reproduce a second generation wouldn't feed many people for any length of time if it became necessary.

I have no issue with GM seeds. I just want to make sure that the heritage seeds remain in use as much as possible, and that we do not move towards terminator seeds altogether.

I wonder what the 10 out of the 13 were, i know there are some chemicals we didn't think were important that might be.

More recent research shows even copper to be an important mineral, yet it is not in the big 3 that artificial fertilizer has.

My only problem with the artificial fertilizer and heavy pesticides is the same as my problem with eating tons of carbs: we never ate this way in the past, we have no idea what effect it will have on our bodies. The burden of proof is not on the organic farmers, it is on the industrial farmers. They need to prove their food is just as healthy. 10 out of 13 is , by definition, less healthy. And do we really believe we know everything we need to know about nutrition? These are the same people who think eating tons of wheat and corn is good for you.

Of course there is a tradeoff, more food, less disease. Those are all great. Especially for poorer parts of the world. I don't want to end GMO, what I want is choice where prices are not artificially suppressed by subsidies or artificially raised by regulation. Let the market decide.

What we need is to change regulation to allow small farms and organic farms to compete without jumping through regulation meant to promote industrial farms. We need to make regulation results oriented not process oriented. And those small farmers need better lobbyists, because for good or ill that's how things work here.

I believe the article you reference here is "Attention Whole Foods Shoppers" by Robert Paarlberg from Foreign Policy. A rebuttal was posted later on the same site by Anna Lappe and is worth reading.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/29/dont_panic_go_organic

"What we need is to change regulation to allow small farms and organic farms to compete without jumping through regulation meant to promote industrial farms. We need to make regulation results oriented not process oriented."

Wow. I can tell you've never, not once, studied anything with the term, "economy of scale" in it.

I have news for you: farming cooperatives are everywhere in the US, as independents band together to take advantage of the basic principles of scale.

It makes no sense for a farmer to learn all the jobs maximum production requires: regulations, crop science, fleet management of harvesting machinery, market forecasting and sales management. So co-ops spread the load EXACTLY like a large company like ADM does, albeit on a smaller scale.

Farming is not exempt from the principle of the distribution of labor. Two men generalizing and doing the same jobs, learning the same tasks, are simple not as efficient as two men dividing the effort.

You're not wishing that away with visions of the Mom and Pop Farm.