Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
"Fruit" isn't really a term that's well defined, at least nutritionally. Vegetable is. A tomato is a vegetable.

The confusion is between the two, you can't claim one is poorly defined and the other is not.

Hence the point of "Is a tomato a vegetable?"

And no, it isn't well defined, not even in the nutritional field.

Nix v. Hedden, the US Supreme Court case, classified the tomato as a vegetable. This was basically because vegetables are served with a meal, and fruits are served with desert. A tomato is served with a meal, therefor it is a vegetable.

Yes, this decision was idiotic.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Organic food isn't necessarily better, and even if subsidized, would never meet our food demands because it's inefficient.

I know you know what is wrong with what you wrote, but I also know you will never admit to it; so I'll spell it out.

Inefficiency is not the same thing as being unable to meet demand, especially if demand is predicated on perceived need and not just desire.

The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so. And, 2-3 billion would die. But, this is assuming we keep the same ratios of food we've currently growing. We could switch to crops that are higher calorie counts and we'd manage to feed everyone (or, at least as well as we do now).

It would mean that meat would be incredibly rare, as would all the plants that take up a lot of room and don't produce many calories. But, we could survive (assuming we stick with using "artificial" fertilizers that most of the world's land needs).

Grakmar wrote:The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so. And, 2-3 billion would die. But, this is assuming we keep the same ratios of food we've currently growing. We could switch to crops that are higher calorie counts and we'd manage to feed everyone (or, at least as well as we do now).

It would mean that meat would be incredibly rare, as would all the plants that take up a lot of room and don't produce many calories. But, we could survive (assuming we stick with using "artificial" fertilizers that most of the world's land needs).

Source?

Melissia wrote:It's well defined in biology!

A vegetable is an edible plant or an edible part of a plant. Edibility is all that is required for a plant to be a vegetable.

A fruit is a specific organ on many species of flowering plants that usually contains the ovaries of the plant.

I see what, I hope, you did there.

Melissia wrote:

Grakmar wrote:The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so. And, 2-3 billion would die. But, this is assuming we keep the same ratios of food we've currently growing. We could switch to crops that are higher calorie counts and we'd manage to feed everyone (or, at least as well as we do now).

It would mean that meat would be incredibly rare, as would all the plants that take up a lot of room and don't produce many calories. But, we could survive (assuming we stick with using "artificial" fertilizers that most of the world's land needs).

Source?

http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/Publications/1998/87-7909-445-7/html/kap08_eng.htm

A Danish study on organic farming. "A total abolition of pesticide use would result in an average drop in farming yields of between 10% and 25%, at the farm level; the smallest losses would occur in cattle farming. On farms that have a large proportion of special crops, such as potatoes, sugar beet and seed grass, the production losses in terms of quantity would be closer to 50%. These crops would probably be ousted by other crops."


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/296/5573/1694

"We found crop yields to be 20% lower in the organic systems, although input of fertilizer and energy was reduced by 34 to 53% and pesticide input by 97%."


And, to detail some of the high-yield crops: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060

Grakmar wrote:
The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so.

Our present food procurement is already inefficient, we could hugely reduce our overhead if more people were vegetarians (meat is expensive in more ways than one), or simply ate less meat.

But I've heard the argument you're making before, and it seems odd. My guess, among those of others, is that organic farming would roughly halve the world's food supply. It would increase costs, but not leave people malnourished given the correct policies.

Of course, it doesn't matter, because "organic" doesn't mean "good".

Grakmar wrote:
The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so. And, 2-3 billion would die. But, this is assuming we keep the same ratios of food we've currently growing. We could switch to crops that are higher calorie counts and we'd manage to feed everyone (or, at least as well as we do now).

It would mean that meat would be incredibly rare, as would all the plants that take up a lot of room and don't produce many calories. But, we could survive (assuming we stick with using "artificial" fertilizers that most of the world's land needs).

Meat would be rare? you mean as it was in our natural diet when we where hunters and gathers?

dogma wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so.

Our present food procurement is already inefficient, we could hugely reduce our overhead if more people were vegetarians (meat is expensive in more ways than one), or simply ate less meat.

I believe that was the gist of the rest of my paragraph.

dogma wrote:But I've heard the argument you're making before, and it seems odd. My guess, among those of others, is that organic farming would roughly halve the world's food supply. It would increase costs, but not leave people malnourished given the correct policies.

In the US, we would absolutely be fine. Food prices would go up dramatically, making things even more difficult on the poor, but we would survive. In countries that struggle with poor soil, droughts, or overpopulation, they would not be able to sustain themselves on organic foods (they struggle to sustain themselves with using artificial means to enhance yield) and massive starvation would occur.

dogma wrote:Of course, it doesn't matter, because "organic" doesn't mean "good".

Agreed. "Organic" (using the word in the food industry sense, not in the actual sense) substances are not necessarily healthy. There are plenty of organic substances that are outright deadly (Nightshade and Arsenic are organic), and even organic foods are not healthier (they result in a very large chance of e.coli). But, they are typically fresher, and taste better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so. And, 2-3 billion would die. But, this is assuming we keep the same ratios of food we've currently growing. We could switch to crops that are higher calorie counts and we'd manage to feed everyone (or, at least as well as we do now).

It would mean that meat would be incredibly rare, as would all the plants that take up a lot of room and don't produce many calories. But, we could survive (assuming we stick with using "artificial" fertilizers that most of the world's land needs).

Meat would be rare? you mean as it was in our natural diet when we where hunters and gathers?

Yes. Or, like it is in many non-western cultures today.

And westerners are the epitomy of healthiness and fitness huh?

hotsauceman1 wrote:And westerners are the epitomy of healthiness and fitness huh?

It depends. Having a larger variety in foods and more availability of foods definitely results in being healthier. That's one of the reasons expected lifespans are pushing 80 years, rather then 30 or so in the Middle Ages. Trying to survive on just one or two crops and the occasional glass of milk or cheese isn't good for you. Increased food availability leads to being healthier.

But, it can definitely go too far. Plenty of Americans (and others, but, sadly, mostly Americans) have taken the widespread availability of food and ran with it and are now facing health problems from eating way too much.

Grakmar wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:And westerners are the epitomy of healthiness and fitness huh?

It depends. Having a larger variety in foods and more availability of foods definitely results in being healthier. That's one of the reasons expected lifespans are pushing 80 years, rather then 30 or so in the Middle Ages. Trying to survive on just one or two crops and the occasional glass of milk or cheese isn't good for you. Increased food availability leads to being healthier.

But, it can definitely go too far. Plenty of Americans (and others, but, sadly, mostly Americans) have taken the widespread availability of food and ran with it and are now facing health problems from eating way too much.

Variety is good. But when you start to go for efficiency over health you cross the line. Which is why i hate GMO's very few studies have been done on their effect on the enviroment and on people. Just look up starlink corn and what happened there.

Grakmar wrote:
Agreed. "Organic" (using the word in the food industry sense, not in the actual sense) substances are not necessarily healthy. There are plenty of organic substances that are outright deadly (Nightshade and Arsenic are organic), and even organic foods are not healthier (they result in a very large chance of e.coli). But, they are typically fresher, and taste better.

What is the "actual" sense, though?

All food is mostly organic, its simply isn't all "natural".

dogma wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
Agreed. "Organic" (using the word in the food industry sense, not in the actual sense) substances are not necessarily healthy. There are plenty of organic substances that are outright deadly (Nightshade and Arsenic are organic), and even organic foods are not healthier (they result in a very large chance of e.coli). But, they are typically fresher, and taste better.

What is the "actual" sense, though?

All food is mostly organic, its simply isn't all "natural".

"Organic" actually means that the molecule is made up of a string of Carbon atoms (that's why Organic Chemistry is all about C molecules). So, things like plastic (polyethylene is -CH2-CH2- repeating) are organic, whereas things like water (H2O, notice the lack of C) are inorganic. So, food is mostly inorganic (it contains a lot of water).

And, all food is 100% natural. Natural means existing in nature. Man is a product of nature, therefor anything we create is also a product of nature. A computer monitor is just as natural as a bird's nest or a beaver dam. The only things that aren't 100% natural are things that don't exist.


Edit: Granted, that's not what non-technical people mean when they use those words, but it's what those words actually mean.

Grakmar wrote:

dogma wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
Agreed. "Organic" (using the word in the food industry sense, not in the actual sense) substances are not necessarily healthy. There are plenty of organic substances that are outright deadly (Nightshade and Arsenic are organic), and even organic foods are not healthier (they result in a very large chance of e.coli). But, they are typically fresher, and taste better.

What is the "actual" sense, though?

All food is mostly organic, its simply isn't all "natural".

"Organic" actually means that the molecule is made up of a string of Carbon atoms (that's why Organic Chemistry is all about C molecules). So, things like plastic (polyethylene is -CH2-CH2- repeating) are organic, whereas things like water (H2O, notice the lack of C) are inorganic. So, food is mostly inorganic (it contains a lot of water).

Wow, that is the most willfully ingnorant thing i have ever heard.
Organic food is an official name for food that is made naturally. as in without artificial(as in made in labs and not existing naturally in the food)
Or idea of "Organic" and "Natural" are right unless they are pertaining to food. in which they take up a different definition
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
"Organic" actually means that the molecule is made up of a string of Carbon atoms (that's why Organic Chemistry is all about C molecules). So, things like plastic (polyethylene is -CH2-CH2- repeating) are organic, whereas things like water (H2O, notice the lack of C) are inorganic. So, food is mostly inorganic (it contains a lot of water).

Wow, that is the most willfully ingnorant thing i have ever heard.
Organic food is an official name for food that is made naturally. as in without artificial(as in made in labs and not existing naturally in the food)
Or idea of "Organic" and "Natural" are right unless they are pertaining to food. in which they take up a different definition
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml

It's not ignorant, it's what those words actually mean. The food industry (and their marketing departments) have taken them and used them as buzz-words in a new definition.

Yes, the USDA has put limits on what can be called "Organic" or "Natural". Their definitions aren't really accurate, but they have done a good job of making sure these words don't become pure marketing terms and can actually give some information to the average consumer (who doesn't really know what those words mean).



Editing to add: I'm not complaining (well, maybe a little. I'm not a fan of people taking words that mean something to a scientist and modifying them to mean something entirely different. See: Theory) about the Food Industry using those words to mean something they don't. I was just clarifying in what sense I was using the word "Organic" and then dogma asked me to expand.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

dogma wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
Agreed. "Organic" (using the word in the food industry sense, not in the actual sense) substances are not necessarily healthy. There are plenty of organic substances that are outright deadly (Nightshade and Arsenic are organic), and even organic foods are not healthier (they result in a very large chance of e.coli). But, they are typically fresher, and taste better.

What is the "actual" sense, though?

All food is mostly organic, its simply isn't all "natural".

"Organic" actually means that the molecule is made up of a string of Carbon atoms (that's why Organic Chemistry is all about C molecules). So, things like plastic (polyethylene is -CH2-CH2- repeating) are organic, whereas things like water (H2O, notice the lack of C) are inorganic. So, food is mostly inorganic (it contains a lot of water).

Wow, that is the most willfully ingnorant thing i have ever heard.
Organic food is an official name for food that is made naturally. as in without artificial(as in made in labs and not existing naturally in the food)
Or idea of "Organic" and "Natural" are right unless they are pertaining to food. in which they take up a different definition
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml

Ignorant? He's talking about, you know chemistry. Everything you're talking about is made up nonsense.
Everything's natural or comes from nature. Organic is just a fancy name of saying you don't want pesticides and are scared of GM food, even though all our food is genetically modified. Also some nuttiness about local growth or "fair trade."

Now you want a category of food that is produced without pesticides, cool and bro fist. Call it that, but don't get high and mighty when the term is bull gak.

Ribon Fox wrote:Biccat your wrong, the tomato is a furit;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/is-a-tomato-a-fruit-or-a-vegetable
I thought every one knew that.

Sigh.

You tell me how to define a fruit that distinguishes it from a vegetable and I'll defer. But the USDA considers cucumbers, zucchini, eggplants, peppers, peas, and tomatoes vegetables, so I'm going to go with that. But yes, they could also be fruits.

hotsauceman1 wrote:And you pay an extra 1.50 when you get horrble food and get sick from it later on. you pay on way or another.

Nope, I don't, because genetically modified food, or even plain old non-organic food, isn't bad for you.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Also Many countries seem to do fine with organic only.

Are you defining organic to only refer to non-genetically modified food? Because there's a lot of farming practices in Mexico that would qualify as "not-organic," like the use of pesticides, fertilizers, etc.

hotsauceman1 wrote:And besides. if proper organic practices where followed we could.

There once was a time when we followed "proper organic practices." We didn't have enough food to feed 7 billion people. Most families struggled to feed their own families on a few acres of land.

Know why we have such a surplus of food available now? Fertilizers, pesticides, and manipulating the genetic structure of food.

You can advocate for organic farming all you want, but realize that you're arguing for mass starvation and against scientific advancement.

Frazzled wrote:

Now you want a category of food that is produced without pesticides, cool and bro fist. Call it that, but don't get high and mighty when the term is bull gak.

I generally make it a policy not to argue with you because you seam reasonable or because you might sick a dog on me. But i disagree. Organic is a real definition of food as in natural.
Also GMO are not natural in the sense that yes we breed corn to make red corn, therefor they are GM. But that occurs(or could occur) in nature. Cross breeding a tomatoe and a flounder doesnt.
Also its not the GMOs themselves it hate. i hate corporations that try to hide it from us so we dont know what we are buying or eating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:And you pay an extra 1.50 when you get horrble food and get sick from it later on. you pay on way or another.

Nope, I don't, because genetically modified food, or even plain old non-organic food, isn't bad for you.

Isnt bad for you.
Here read this. Even thought it wasnt fit for human consumption, it still found its way into farms because surprise surprise. seeds travel.
http://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biot/new/StarLinkCorn.html

The big problem I have with the pro-Organic crowd is Genetic Modification is not inherently wrong, nor does it necessarily result in unhealthy foods.

Humans have been genetically modifying things for longer than we've had civilization. The non-modified horse didn't have a back strong enough to support a human, but we genetically modified it (by selective breeding) to the point where it can support a lot of weight. The non-modified corn plant provides effectively zero food. But, thanks to genetic modification, we produced a plant that could feed people. Here's a picture, the original is on the left, the modern is on the right:



There are plenty of additions that should be avoided (DDT is a great example), and genetic modifications that result in unhealthy foods (some of the hormone additions to cows are rather questionable). But, that just means we need to be more careful and properly test things before we make them widespread. It doesn't mean that we should go back in time to a point when we only eat things that humans didn't have a hand in.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

biccat wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:And you pay an extra 1.50 when you get horrble food and get sick from it later on. you pay on way or another.

Nope, I don't, because genetically modified food, or even plain old non-organic food, isn't bad for you.

Isnt bad for you.
Here read this. Even thought it wasnt fit for human consumption, it still found its way into farms because surprise surprise. seeds travel.
http://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biot/new/StarLinkCorn.html

Right, isn't bad for you.

From the link (broken up to show the point):

The EPA Scientific Advisory panel considered the protein Cry9C a medium risk potential human allergen....Since the Cry9C protein is only a small fraction of corn protein, the probability that the protein would sensitize an individual is low.

The FDA received approximately 34 reports of adverse reaction to corn products which may contain StarLink. Of the 34 reports, 20 were very unlikely a result of an allergenic reaction. The U.S. Center investigated 7 people who experienced symptoms that are consistent with an allergenic reaction. The people showed no reaction to the Cry9C protein
...
[N]ew information demonstrated the consumption of corn based foods that contain StarLink would expose consumers to Cry9C many times smaller than needed to cause sensitivity.

I'm not sure why Aventis withdrew their StarCorn, from the link, it sounds like there were no problems with it and very low risk of problems.

Unless you were providing the link to show that the EPA is a useless agency that is limiting the development, commercialization, and efficient production of food. Then I'd probably agree with you.

Grakmar wrote:

There are plenty of additions that should be avoided (DDT is a great example), and genetic modifications that result in unhealthy foods (some of the hormone additions to cows are rather questionable). But, that just means we need to be more careful and properly test things before we make them widespread. It doesn't mean that we should go back in time to a point when we only eat things that humans didn't have a hand in.

I agree, Like i said. I have no problem with GMO's I have problems with how little people care(in america) of what they may be putting in their body.) So little testing is done. But companies got around to make testing so careless so they could get them to market fast.
Also,
if their plant makes in onto your field by way of wind(remember how seeds travel) they can and do sue you for patent infringment.
Also in canada it a plant cross pollinates with a GMO plant the companies will own both.
Also a complete loss of bio-diversity is also a big problem.

Grakmar wrote:The big problem I have with the pro-Organic crowd is Genetic Modification is not inherently wrong, nor does it necessarily result in unhealthy foods.

Humans have been genetically modifying things for longer than we've had civilization. The non-modified horse didn't have a back strong enough to support a human, but we genetically modified it (by selective breeding) to the point where it can support a lot of weight. The non-modified corn plant provides effectively zero food. But, thanks to genetic modification, we produced a plant that could feed people. Here's a picture, the original is on the left, the modern is on the right:



There are plenty of additions that should be avoided (DDT is a great example), and genetic modifications that result in unhealthy foods (some of the hormone additions to cows are rather questionable). But, that just means we need to be more careful and properly test things before we make them widespread. It doesn't mean that we should go back in time to a point when we only eat things that humans didn't have a hand in.

EXACTLY. However it leaves off the ultimate modified corn item - hot buttered popcorn!!!!!

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
There are plenty of additions that should be avoided (DDT is a great example), and genetic modifications that result in unhealthy foods (some of the hormone additions to cows are rather questionable). But, that just means we need to be more careful and properly test things before we make them widespread. It doesn't mean that we should go back in time to a point when we only eat things that humans didn't have a hand in.

I agree, Like i said. I have no problem with GMO's I have problems with how little people care(in america) of what they may be putting in their body.) So little testing is done. But companies got around to make testing so careless so they could get them to market fast.

I... agree! Mark this day on your calender, Dakka! The OT forum had an argument that was well-informed, well-argued, and actually resulted in both parties agreeing to some middle ground!

hotsauceman1 wrote:Also a complete loss of bio-diversity is also a big problem.

Absolutely. The Irish Potato Famine is a great example. Irish farmers were almost entirely growing a single variety of potato (because it was the best) with little alternate potatoes. When a fungus came along that attacked that strain of potatoes, it wiped out an incredibly large percentage of the food. If there had been more diversity in the Irish crops (both in terms of the variety of potatoes and including other non-potato crops), the famine would have been avoided.

Putting all our eggs in just a few baskets is a bad idea.

AustonT wrote:My disagreement is not in the nutritional value, it's how awful I think it is.

That's certainly a reasonable opinion, and I didn't say that I thought processed meat wasn't awful, just that how it is made has little to no bearing on how nutritious it is. And, in case it needs to be said, I'm not of the opinion that what the staffer in the article did was necessarily a good thing. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, there could have been extenuating circumstances that made the action seem less stupid, but that information is not in the article.

biccat wrote:What a child will or will not eat certainly affects the nutritional value that they receive from lunch. If the objective of the school lunch screening program is to ensure that children get appropriate nutrition at school (rather than just serving the right food), then they should definitely consider what the kids will or will not eat. Particularly if the decision is between the child eating a marginally healthy lunch and not eating a fully healthy lunch. Your argument is one of form over substance.

I'd say my argument is one of realism, but suit yourself. And to address something you said, it's impossible to have the school lunch program ensure that children get appropriate nutrition at school, because they cannot force children to eat. The best they can accomplish is to serve nutritious food. Given that the school is, at least in part, responsible for the welfare of the children in attendance, some form of monitoring of their diet while at school is a good idea. I also think it is a good idea to monitor the behavior of students for signs of abuse, as well. Shadowseer_Kim provided a better procedure for the diet monitoring than what seems to be going on in the article, but I'm in favor the "observe and report" policy rather than a direct action one (at least in part because direct action relies on the official acting to make a decision based on partial information and a likely emotionally charged viewpoint - which leads to bad decisions often).

I have a question for the advocates of "organic food". What, to you, does "organic" or "natural" food mean to you? I'm guessing it means non-genetically modified, pesticide free food?

IcyCool wrote:I'd say my argument is one of realism, but suit yourself. And to address something you said, it's impossible to have the school lunch program ensure that children get appropriate nutrition at school, because they cannot force children to eat.

Actually, they can. It's not a pretty solution, but the school certainly could force the kid to eat. There are lots of things that the state forces us to do. Eating would be no different.

IcyCool wrote:The best they can accomplish is to serve nutritious food. Given that the school is, at least in part, responsible for the welfare of the children in attendance, some form of monitoring of their diet while at school is a good idea.

So in my example above, you would rather a kid not eat a healthy meal than eat a marginally healthy meal? How do you justify this as nutritionally advantageous?

IcyCool wrote:I also think it is a good idea to monitor the behavior of students for signs of abuse, as well. Shadowseer_Kim provided a better procedure for the diet monitoring than what seems to be going on in the article, but I'm in favor the "observe and report" policy rather than a direct action one (at least in part because direct action relies on the official acting to make a decision based on partial information and a likely emotionally charged viewpoint - which leads to bad decisions often).

Report to who? And for what reason? Should a fat kid be taken away from his parents?

I'll admit that the problem of child abuse is a tricky situation that has to balance the rights of individuals from overzealous government scrutiny against the interest of the child in not being abused, but you seem to tip more heavily towards scrutiny.

biccat wrote:Actually, they can. It's not a pretty solution, but the school certainly could force the kid to eat. There are lots of things that the state forces us to do. Eating would be no different.

Well, sure, but it wouldn't be legal (at least, by the current laws of the various states today). Again, I'm coming from a realistic standpoint, not some strange absurdity where school officials are allowed and expected to hold children down and force feed them.

biccat wrote:So in my example above, you would rather a kid not eat a healthy meal than eat a marginally healthy meal? How do you justify this as nutritionally advantageous?

Refusing to eat has very little to do with whether or not the meal they are served has a good nutritional value. Obviously, enticing children to eat a nutritious meal by making it taste good is an avenue that should be pursued.

I'm a bit unclear as to where your argument is headed. Rather than poke about in the dark as we go back and forth for several pages, let's try and get at the "meat" of the issue. I'm saying that a school is responsible for serving healthy food, because they are, at least in part, responsible for the health and well being of the students in their care. You seem to be of the opinion that the school should instead serve the children whatever they like, because eating a full meal (whether it is healthy for you or not), is better than eating a partial meal.

I mean, if your ultimate point here is that you think that schools shouldn't provide the children in their care healthy meals when the parents of those children provide unhealthy meals, then why not drive straight at that point? It is, at the very least, more defensible (and, at least in part, reasonable) than your current argument of "lots of bad food is better than a little good food".

biccat wrote:Report to who? And for what reason? Should a fat kid be taken away from his parents?

I guess I should ask you this: If a parent serves their child nothing but soda and twinkies, do you think that constitutes abuse or neglect for that child's well being?

I'm assuming you do, provided that such a "meal plan" is a very common, very regular thing in that child's diet. In other words, if that is all the child gets to eat for say, a year, that would be bad. But a treat like that once in a while is perfectly reasonable. I don't have a magic number on how many meals of this nature in a given time period indicates neglect, but I'd rather such things were observed and documented than completely ignored or acted upon rashly.

biccat wrote:I'll admit that the problem of child abuse is a tricky situation that has to balance the rights of individuals from overzealous government scrutiny against the interest of the child in not being abused, but you seem to tip more heavily towards scrutiny.

Yes, its tricky, and yes, I lean heavily towards scrutiny (the other end of the scale being action). I would much prefer that a child be taken away from their parents because of a solid case of abuse based on evidence than because of a knee-jerk reaction by a school staffer who let a tiny amount of power go to their head. As you noted, however, its tricky in abuse cases to determine the truth of what is going on quickly enough to prevent further harm to the abused.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Wow, that is the most willfully ingnorant thing i have ever heard.
Organic food is an official name for food that is made naturally. as in without artificial(as in made in labs and not existing naturally in the food)
Or idea of "Organic" and "Natural" are right unless they are pertaining to food. in which they take up a different definition
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml

So... I live, work, eat, and breathe in the US Agricultural industry. When 'organic' goes into my left ear, what actually reaches my brain is 'food that was grown in poop with bugs'.

I'm serious. If you want a quick litmus test, go to your grocery store and put an 'organic' tomato next to a 'normal' tomato. The 'normal' tomato is just better looking; it's bigger, more vibrant, and has fewer visible flaws. This is the reason that organic produce is often kept separate from non-organic produce; because it looks terrible in comparison.

'Organic' produce still needs potassium, nitrates and phosphates. Non-organic fertilizer incorporates this stuff from potash and ammonia, which is basically dug out of the ground as byproducts of nat gas production. 'Organic' fertilizer, however, is basically limited to animal poop.

The catch-22 with 'organic' produce is that you actually need far more livestock production, cattle specifically, in order to generate the homongous amount of poop needed to fuel production. This in turn requires a massive amount of pastureland, which directly competes with cropland for space.

As a result, organic production is one of the most intensive forms of ag on the scale needed to feed everybody. Since organic yields are materially lower than inorganic, you need to convert more cropland from pasture, and clear more forest to create pasture. It's also more labor intensive so you need more people to go become farmers (which is the opposite of the current trend btw). Net result is you have less food that costs a whole gakload more. The poor get hit the hardest, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:Absolutely. The Irish Potato Famine is a great example.

The Irish Potato Famine is a terrible example because it was institutionalized famine.

The 80% of the population that was Irish Catholic was beholden to landlords largely living in England and exacting oppressive rent and duties that ensured longterm, crippling poverty. Ireland was producing enough food/revenue to feed its own through this whole period, but was forced to give it up to fuel England's prosperity.

That's why these people were growing potatoes in the first place; it was a 'spammable' crop. The potato blight was simply tne nail in the coffin prompting significant societal, structural change, emigration in particular.

No absent, battery or IVs they school couldn't literally force the kid to eat. of course if they tried the parents would own the school shortly thereafter.

The Irish Potato Famine happened because of monocultured crops. It wasn't "institutionalized" so much as it was an example of "ignorance on a national level having devastating results".

IF I ever have kids I will have to home school, or send them to a Montessori or similar school. No way would I let these people try and "raise" my kids better than me

To clear things up, I am not in favour of schools having someone dictating what children can or can not eat, or really even severely monitor it.

Schools in general seem to think they are a township to themselves seperate from the existing laws and procedures of the outside world, and that they can do whatever they please.

2 incidents happened recently, one where one boy was beaten and sexually assaulted by 3 other boys in the shower. What did the school do? Report the incident to the police? Nope. They sat the children down in the same room together, conducted a "investigation" internally, basically asked the boys to shake hands and apologize, then gave the 3 boys who committed a serious crime a few days suspension.

Another incident happened where a young girl, 11 I beleive was attacked by a few other girls who were ages 12 and 13 while standing at her locker. They all punched her multiple times, and there was a teacher who witnessed it. Did the school call the police to report that an assault had occurred? Nope. Once again the school did an "investigation" internally, and gave the girls who committed a serious crime of assault a few days suspension.

Most people working in a school have no authority or experience in matters of law, law enforcement, and regarding the subject of this thread nutrition either.

The majority of gym teachers are not experts in the fitness field, but are average teachers who took on the extra work of also doing gym. In my highschool it was an english and a math instructor.

Yes there is a problem with the schools excerting too much control over our children. The system has taken a stance that it is better at raising children than the parents time and time again.