By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Does environmental impact affect your buying decisions?

 

Does environmental impact affect your buying decisions?

Yes 10 100.00%
 
Total:10
SamuelRSmith said:
Chrizum said:
SamuelRSmith said:
ssj12 said:
Chrizum said:
Armads said:

Yes it does, that's why I avoid organic food.

Nice troll.


Ya... its people like him who have no clue the benefits of such foods.


They may be better for human consumption, but the environmental impact of organic fruits and vegetables are often misrepresented, as well as buying local foods.

This post is completely useless without any arguments to back it up. Your post is essentially the same as Armad's troll post, although you probably don't mean to troll.

Haha, this is just the way I post, make a general sweeping statement, wait for someone to make a couple of counter-points, and then go in guns-blazing.

Generally, though, organic food requires more land, water, and energy per crop than the normal mass-produced shit. It's just economies of scale all over again. Organic farms, on the whole, also produce less crops which means that a far greater number of organic farms are required to meet supply requirements - adding to transportation needs, etc.

That's only half of the story though. Enitre rainforests are being destroyed every day for farms to grow food on for the "mass-produced shit". Tons of animal diseases origin from the factory farms not to mention the enormous CO2 emissions. Factory farms are actually one of the worst things for our environment right now, just behind the killing of our oceans.



Around the Network
Joelcool7 said:
HappySqurriel said:
Joelcool7 said:

This depends. I do care about the enviroment and recycle almost everything. I try to make my foot print as small as possible. I buy food products more often if they use recycled containers and I prefer buying some other products if they use recycled containers. I buy SunChips more often then other chips because the bag is biodegradable. However it does not sway which companies I support in entertainment. I buy Nintendo products more then any other gaming product and they are horrible for the enviroment.

I guess it comes down to a mixture of both. I will buy an enviromentally friendly product over another product if the product quality is similiar or just as good. But I will not choose a sub par product over the better product just because its better for the enviroment!


How are they "horrible for the environment"?

I believe it was Greenpeace who gave Nintendo a failing rating not because they were doing anything wrong, but because Nintendo would not release information to Greenpeace. What Greenpeace is doing is very sleazy, and effectively extortion and libel that they can legally get away with.

Yah I was basing my reply on GreenPeace's report. Also I read another report somewhere that listed Nintendo as the worst for the enviroment out of Sony , MS and Nintendo. However I know the origional fat DS said it was made out of recycled plastic so they can't be all that bad.


Other than the Greenpeace report, I have never seen anything saying Nintendo disregards the environment more than their competitors.



Nope. Not in the slightest.

As for the organic/non organic debate the multiple studies that find evidence for and against, both environmentally and nutritionally.



Chrizum said:

That's only half of the story though. Enitre rainforests are being destroyed every day for farms to grow food on for the "mass-produced shit". Tons of animal diseases origin from the factory farms not to mention the enormous CO2 emissions. Factory farms are actually one of the worst things for our environment right now, just behind the killing of our oceans.


Organic farming requires MORE land, so how will it reduce forest destruction?

As that article that HappySquirrel posted says, organic farms can produce more CO2 emissions per crop than  factory farms.

I don't actually support factory farming as far as meat/eggs/dairy are concerned, as I feel the animal welfare issues that arise from factory farming trump anything in regards to emissions.

At least, however, we agree on ocean destruction being the greatest environmental tragedy of today... and it's 10* worse, because it's one that 90% of people ignore/don't even realise it's happening.



HappySqurriel said:
SamuelRSmith said:
ssj12 said:
Chrizum said:
Armads said:

Yes it does, that's why I avoid organic food.

Nice troll.


Ya... its people like him who have no clue the benefits of such foods.


They may be better for human consumption, but the environmental impact of organic fruits and vegetables are often misrepresented, as well as buying local foods.

Just to demonstrate your point:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1543224/Organic-food-that-is-not-as-green-as-we-think.html

Organic food that is not as green as we think

Organic and locally-grown food may be no better for the environment than conventional produce, according to a Government-funded report.

 

Milk, tomatoes and chicken produced to organic standards can be more polluting than their intensively-farmed equivalents, said researchers from the Manchester Business School in a study for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The energy needed to grow organic tomatoes is 1.9 times that of conventional methods, the study found. Organic milk requires 80 per cent more land to produce than conventional milk and creates 20 per cent more carbon dioxide, it says. The use of manure to fertilise land can lead to acidification of soil and the pollution of water courses.

Organic chickens require 25 per cent more energy to rear and produce more carbon dioxide than conventional battery or barn hens, according to the report.

However, the study points out that there are many organic foods with lower ecological impacts than conventional produce. It suggests there is no clear-cut answer as to whether an organic or a conventional trolley of goods has more or less impact.

The report adds: "Organic agriculture poses its own environmental problems in the production of some foods, either in terms of nutrient release to water or in terms of climate change burdens.

"Similarly there is little evidence that the consumption of locally sourced food products generally has a lower environmental impact than those from further afield."

It points out, for example, that organic tomatoes grown in heated greenhouses in Britain generate 100 times more carbon dioxide per kilogram than tomatoes from unheated greenhouses in Spain.

The Soil Association said the report was "not a comprehensive analysis" and did not cover biological diversity. For example, organic farms have been shown to be better for declining farmland birds such as skylarks and partridges.

A spokesman said it recognised that in some areas, such as poultry and growing vegetables out of season, organic was less energy efficient. But that was outweighed by other factors the Defra study had not considered such as animal welfare, soil condition and water usage.

The association is unhappy with the model used for the study which, it says, amplified the amount of nitrous oxide emissions – a greenhouse gas – and increased the land area used by half.

• Illegal genetically-modified rice may still be on sale months after the Food Standards Agency said it had been withdrawn, Friends of the Earth will tell the High Court today.

A judicial review of whether the agency took adequate steps to protect consumers will hear that a strain of GM rice contaminated supplies last year.

Clare Oxborrow, of Friends of the Earth, claimed: "Instead of acting to make sure the public were not exposed to illegal GM rice, the agency sat back and waited for contaminated products to be sold and eaten."

 

This isn't to say that organic (or locally grown) food is bad, but it will have different levels of effectiveness depending on a lot of factors including the climate of the region you're talking about and the crop people are growing.


There is other points that organic food provide. Cage-free chickens and organic milk is way more humane to the animals, and there are little to no pesticides used for organic foods. The general environmental side of the use of these foods isn't waste or carbon, but the treatment of the animals and natural growth of the foods.

Being environmentally friendly or green isn't always about limiting carbon or limiting power use.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Around the Network
SamuelRSmith said:
Chrizum said:

That's only half of the story though. Enitre rainforests are being destroyed every day for farms to grow food on for the "mass-produced shit". Tons of animal diseases origin from the factory farms not to mention the enormous CO2 emissions. Factory farms are actually one of the worst things for our environment right now, just behind the killing of our oceans.


Organic farming requires MORE land, so how will it reduce forest destruction?

As that article that HappySquirrel posted says, organic farms can produce more CO2 emissions per crop than  factory farms.

I don't actually support factory farming as far as meat/eggs/dairy are concerned, as I feel the animal welfare issues that arise from factory farming trump anything in regards to emissions.

At least, however, we agree on ocean destruction being the greatest environmental tragedy of today... and it's 10* worse, because it's one that 90% of people ignore/don't even realise it's happening.

Organic farms themselves requires more land, but factory farms require enormous amounts of land to grow food on to feed the animals in the factory farms.

EDIT: this is the short answer, as I have to go. If you're interested in it, we can discuss about this later on. Cheers.



No,I'll be dead before the earth will.



I wasn't trolling and as has already been discussed organic food is less efficient then conventional farming.  It requirese more land, more energy, and sometimes even more water.  Furthermore there is not a single study supporting the claim that organic food is in any way healther or more nutritious.  The only thing organic food really has going for it is that organic farmers tend to treat animals more humanly.  But as someone who eats a primarily pescetarian diet that doesn't really matter to me. 

 

Organic food requires more pesticides then conventionally farmed foods.  Many people believe that organic means pesticide free, but actually it just means that the pesticides used are not synthetic.  These natural pesticides don't work as well and thus must be used in greater quantities, the runoff of this leaks into the groundwater and contaminates more water then conventional synthetic pesticides would.

 

Many people will also just buy anything with a label that says Organic on it and not pay attention to where it was harvested.  If you're buying organic potatoes made in Iowa and  you're living in florida then I don't care what you believe, the gas used to haul that potato across the nation will offset any environmental benefits organic food supposedly has.



I used to try pretty hard to ensure that I was buying environmentally food but nowadays I tend to relax a bit. There are simply so many things to watch out for and no clear guide as to what is environmentally friendly and as someone mentioned there are a lot of "smoke and mirrors" . Plus my parents don't take too kindly to spending more money to satisfy my ethical conscience.



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"