"Organic Food", Good but not Nessesary

[n2ize]

Recently I have been hearing claims that food grown using "natural fertilizers" , such as manure, decayed plant matter, decayed food materials, are somehow superior to foods grown using inorganic chemical fertilizers. Nothing can be further from the truth. Plants which derive nutrients from the soil and water end up having to extract and convert the nutrients and materials in "organic fertilizers" to the same nutrients found in inorganic chemical fertilizers. To the plant both are the same.

So, about the only thing different between "organically grown food" versus "non-organically grown food" is the price, the former generally being more expensive. Organic food ? Nice but not necessary.

[NQ6U]

Simply put, there is no measurable difference in the quality of food grown organically over that grown using the more conventional methods. However, when correctly managed, organic farming is probably easier on the overall environment because it's less dependent on the use of petroleum products. Is that worth the extra money for the produce? I don't know; it's a judgement call.

[ki4itv]

I usually draw the line at organic polymers of a high molecular mass.
But farting that 'new car smell' has its benefits when carpooling.

[kb2vxa]

You're eating a plant, not the chemicals or pig poo it grew up in so why pay extra for marketing hype? Oh, I never smelled a new car fart or one that smelled like a new car so what am I missing?

[KB3LAZ]

Idk but I do buy my meat from the local butcher that is not fed steroids. I figure if they are bad for you to take directly they are bad by proxy as well.

[ki4itv]

Oh, I never smelled a new car fart or one that smelled like a new car so what am I missing?

I've joked a lot about our overly processed foods containing more and more complex polymer chains as additives. So much, that eventually humans will probably fart a new car smell.
just me being an idiot.

[KB3LAZ]

I've joked a lot about our overly processed foods containing more and more complex polymer chains as additives. So much, that eventually humans will probably fart a new car smell.
just me being an idiot.

Idk about that but my stomach can only handle so much processed food, or at least specific types. Prime example would be fast foods. If its more than twice a month..I erm..well I have to take Metamucil as it is.

[n2ize]

You're eating a plant, not the chemicals or pig poo it grew up in so why pay extra for marketing hype?

Very true. Furthermore, "organically grown" doesn't necessarily mean the food is free of pesticides. It is entirely possible an "organic farmer" may use pesticides to save an endangered crop. Matter of fact many so called "organic vegetables" tested show definite levels of pesticide residues, sometimes comparable to levels found in non-organically grown foods.

[KB3LAZ]

Very true. Furthermore, "organically grown" doesn't necessarily mean the food is free of pesticides. It is entirely possible an "organic farmer" may use pesticides to save an endangered crop. Matter of fact many so called "organic vegetables" tested show definite levels of pesticide residues, sometimes comparable to levels found in non-organically grown foods.

I pay more for my veggies in the long run because I grow them myself. Yes, year 'round. They taste better too. Though I have to say, they do taste better grown outside as opposed too in one of my greenhouses. Well, different not necessarily better. Either way they taste better IMO than what I get in the store.

As far as them being better for you goes. Anyone can believe what they want, Ill believe my stomach. :)

[KC2UGV]

Simply put, there is no measurable difference in the quality of food grown organically over that grown using the more conventional methods. However, when correctly managed, organic farming is probably easier on the overall environment because it's less dependent on the use of petroleum products. Is that worth the extra money for the produce? I don't know; it's a judgement call.

^^^ This
Only reason I try to buy organic. But if possible, I'll look past the non-organic label if I get a chance to check out how the farm is ran. If they farm using standard methods, but run their tractors on wood gas; or reclaim the methane from manure; I'll side with that one.

[kb2vxa]

"Matter of fact many so called "organic vegetables" tested show definite levels of pesticide residues, sometimes comparable to levels found in non-organically grown foods."

So why am I not surprised? Logically, pesticides are used to mitigate insect damage even on those pig poo sprayed fields you smell on the way to Dayton. Don't panic, just wash your veggies or if you have the real estate, plant a garden and dump your organic waste in a compost heap. BTW, for the fishermen, at the bottom you'll find worms that put up a better fight than the fish.

[W5GA]

Very true. Furthermore, "organically grown" doesn't necessarily mean the food is free of pesticides. It is entirely possible an "organic farmer" may use pesticides to save an endangered crop. Matter of fact many so called "organic vegetables" tested show definite levels of pesticide residues, sometimes comparable to levels found in non-organically grown foods.
The pesticide residues you see in organics will be coming from the hybrid crops they are growing. Some of the Monsanto stuff now has it installed as part of the GMO package, so it's impossible to get rid of it.
Buy heirloom produce, grown organically, and it's not an issue.

[KC2UGV]

The pesticide residues you see in organics will be coming from the hybrid crops they are growing. Some of the Monsanto stuff now has it installed as part of the GMO package, so it's impossible to get rid of it.
Buy heirloom produce, grown organically, and it's not an issue.

One of these days, I'm going to buy a few hundred tonnes of Mosanto seed, and spread it via high altitude drop.

Let's see Mosanto demand the destruction of 3/4 of a region's crops. I'm still trying to figure out how one can patent DNA... And why a farmer isn't allowed to sue for damages if their crops are contaminated with Mosanto's seed.

I have nothing against their product, but damn, they are militant about it.

[n2ize]

Buy heirloom produce, grown organically, and it's not an issue.

Perhaps true but not necessary Regular non-organic crops are perfectly safe..

[KG4CGC]

There are a lot of things that root foods absorb that don't go anywhere except inside you. Didn't we talk about potatoes just a week or two ago?

[HUGH]

Apart from absorption into the human body, one disadvantage of un-natural chemical sprays and other treatments is the destruction of beneficial pollinating insects. This isn't just bees but a large number of other insects as well.

Another aspect of the use petroleum-based fertilisers and so on is that no friable matter goes into the soil and that means no bulk and no underground fungal growths which are important for some crops.

[n6hcm]

i find that my organic dairy good *do* have a different flavor ... quite agreeable, actually. i'm not strict about it--i just do what makes sense. out here sometimes organic produce costs *less* than the conventional product--how nice of them to not charge me for pesticides that i'd prefer not to eat anyway!

[W5GA]

Perhaps true but not necessary Regular non-organic crops are perfectly safe..
Didn't say they weren't. But they won't breed true from saved seed, so are useless as far as I'm concerned.

[KC2UGV]

Didn't say they weren't. But they won't breed true from saved seed, so are useless as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think Mosanto seed will breed at all after two years, if I recall. And it most certainly produces sterile seed in the crops.

Useless. But somehow, they are able to force farmers into buying broken products.

[KC2UGV]

i find that my organic dairy good *do* have a different flavor ... quite agreeable, actually. i'm not strict about it--i just do what makes sense. out here sometimes organic produce costs *less* than the conventional product--how nice of them to not charge me for pesticides that i'd prefer not to eat anyway!

It may not be the organic part of it, but rather the feed. Good feed produces good milk. Crap feed produces crap milk. Organic growers tend to feed better to their stock than non-organic farmers.

[rot]

Used to work with GMO B. thurengensis a bunch. We were trying to bust into the pesticide biz targeting pine beetles. A section of Thurengensis stuff codes for a protein which is quite toxic under certain conditions and is quite clever. It is damn near insoluble up unto about pH 12.0. The larval stage of the beetle is unique for its alkaline digestive system...It is the only stage in its cycle of which this is true. This protein is soluble in this stage and drops the beetle larvae like a rock. Pretty sweet little tactic IMHO. As with any forest or business..the between infestation cycles in forest is quite large and the bean counters decided no go on the deal. Used to get a kick out of the Bt-corn is gonna kill my kids group. It would have only stayed around for the hominy grits folk...which is an alkaline process and you chugged some drain cleaner along with it. Oh well.
Work with GRAS approved GMO junk everyday. We patent it and we protect it. It is considered our intellectual property and we just hammered a company in Wisconsin for infringement on it. We try to do good things with it and make some cash as well. At least IMHO we do good things...YMMV.
rot

[KC2UGV]

Work with GRAS approved GMO junk everyday. We patent it and we protect it. It is considered our intellectual property and we just hammered a company in Wisconsin for infringement on it. We try to do good things with it and make some cash as well. At least IMHO we do good things...YMMV.
rot

Good things shouldn't include ordering a farmer to destroy all crops if a hint of their seed is detected. They should realize that there are many pollinators and seed carriers out there.

And, the nonsense of licensing per year is ridiculous. Buy seed, and use it whenever the hell the farmer decides to.

You can't patent DNA, and then say you are trying to do good things. It's like me patenting parts of the human genome, and charging everyone a license fee for it. It's as ridiculous as patenting software.

[rot]

Good things shouldn't include ordering a farmer to destroy all crops if a hint of their seed is detected. They should realize that there are many pollinators and seed carriers out there.

And, the nonsense of licensing per year is ridiculous. Buy seed, and use it whenever the hell the farmer decides to.

You can't patent DNA, and then say you are trying to do good things. It's like me patenting parts of the human genome, and charging everyone a license fee for it. It's as ridiculous as patenting software.

We patent strains which we have altered to produce the products (enzymes) we desire. Most often is multiple copies for an already existant protein for yield improvement. We sell the products these entities produce. It is not as if the production strains are in your dogs Bean-O, but the active ingediant is. For me I guess I'm just a hypocrit, cause I just let my dogs fart... no prob.
Anyway...enough on this...Have a large day.
rot

[KC2UGV]

We patent strains which we have altered to produce the products (enzymes) we desire. Most often is multiple copies for an already existant protein for yield improvement. We sell the products these entities produce. It is not as if the production strains are in your dogs Bean-O, but the active ingediant is. For me I guess I'm just a hypocrit, cause I just let my dogs fart... no prob.
Anyway...enough on this...Have a large day.
rot

Your organization patents DNA. Plain and simple, instead of patenting the enzyme. Patent the production method. Patent something other than the software which you in fact, just copied from something else, and introduced.

[rot]

Your organization patents DNA. Plain and simple, instead of patenting the enzyme. Patent the production method. Patent something other than the software which you in fact, just copied from something else, and introduced.

OK..I'll tell the sister company to stop the insulin stuff and go back to pig pancreas extractions. Might need a few more pigs...could get messy.
rot

[KC2UGV]

OK..I'll tell the sister company to stop the insulin stuff and go back to pig pancreas extractions. Might need a few more pigs...could get messy.
rot

You don't have to patent DNA to produce insulin with bacteria. You can patent to the process. Patents were never meant to cover software, DNA included. Patents cover methodology and designs.

Patent extraction of X-Y sequences from organism A and insertion into organism B. Don't patent the changed DNA of Organism B.

[kf0rt]

You don't have to patent DNA to produce insulin with bacteria. You can patent to the process. Patents were never meant to cover software, DNA included. Patents cover methodology and designs.

Patent extraction of X-Y sequences from organism A and insertion into organism B. Don't patent the changed DNA of Organism B.

Those decisions rest with "legal," not "engineering."

(Believe yer prayin' in the wrong part of the church...)

[rot]

Those decisions rest with "legal," not "engineering."

(Believe yer prayin' in the wrong part of the church...)

Yeppers...I just got off the phone with one of our patent lawyers...
More than I needed to know....
We as in Novozymes patent strains and processes of the end product of the strains.
Now here we go .... I ain't no lawyer boys....but... A strain can not be patented under classical mutagenesis (i.e. nuked with UV or something)...But for insertion(the X-Y stuff from A to B) where the whole signature and how it got there must be documented and such and is the essence of the property....
Phuck dat...sounds like a paperwork nightmare....
I argue GMO utility from the products/processes I've seen grow up through 30 years of dickin' around here. Most die instantly outside the controlled conditions of the fermentors and our biggest concern locally is with allegies and antibiotic resistance scenarios. The Danes spend an extraordinary amount of time in regards to safety and it is factored in to LCA calculations which ultimately determine what we make.
Anyhoo...enuf lawyer shitz for me today...off to ping an nmr at 20mHz.
Later,
rot

[KC2UGV]

Those decisions rest with "legal," not "engineering."

(Believe yer prayin' in the wrong part of the church...)

Most likely... Apologies Rot :(

[rot]

Most likely... Apologies Rot :(

None needed really..but thanks anyway. It is a fine line I reckon with lots of room for ambiguity. I guess that is what they have lawyers for..
anyway party on.
rot

[W5GA]

I don't think Mosanto seed will breed at all after two years, if I recall. And it most certainly produces sterile seed in the crops.

Useless. But somehow, they are able to force farmers into buying broken products.
Not really what I was referring to. I meant seed that you saved from the tomato's currently on the plant, or corn on the stalk. And you're right, if it's Monsanto it'll be sterile. Other hybrids and GMO's may not be sterile, but won't breed true so that over time you end up with some really weird looking chit. Heirloom seed breeds true, year after year.

As to farmers buying Monsanto seed, they have a patent on their Roundup resistant strains, and that's what drives it. Roundup is still the best weed killer there is.

[W5GA]

Organic growers tend to feed better to their stock than non-organic farmers.
Hmmm, I rather doubt that. In the central valley in Ca., you have the largest dairies in the U.S. They demand (and pay for) the very best alfalfa hay they can get, and put supplements in it when they chop it. In fact, most of the really big ones won't even look at your hay if it hasn't been certified by a lab as to protein content (18-24% protein), with the hay down in the 18% range only being called "fair", quality wise. They stuff so much protein into the cows that they are up to 3 full milkings a day on some of them.

An organic dairy won't be feeding hay like that, as the hay has to be grown organically, too.

[kf0rt]

Hmmm, I rather doubt that. In the central valley in Ca., you have the largest dairies in the U.S. They demand (and pay for) the very best alfalfa hay they can get, and put supplements in it when they chop it. In fact, most of the really big ones won't even look at your hay if it hasn't been certified by a lab as to protein content (18-24% protein), with the hay down in the 18% range only being called "fair", quality wise. They stuff so much protein into the cows that they are up to 3 full milkings a day on some of them.

An organic dairy won't be feeding hay like that, as the hay has to be grown organically, too.

Used to work in the dairy business at a company that made the milking equipment (Cowputers, if you insist). This was back in the early 80's and milking 3x a day was the norm, even then. Our test farm had about 800 head; figure 2/3rds to 3/4ths milking on any given day. They milked around the clock and had one hour a day (2 AM) to clean the milking parlor. Quite an operation, but pretty typical for a big dairy operation.

[KB3LAZ]

Used to work in the dairy business at a company that made the milking equipment (Cowputers, if you insist). This was back in the early 80's and milking 3x a day was the norm, even then. Our test farm had about 800 head; figure 2/3rds to 3/4ths milking on any given day. They milked around the clock and had one hour a day (2 AM) to clean the milking parlor. Quite an operation, but pretty typical for a big dairy operation.

We used to have a dairy farm down the road from us. Worked there summers as a kid. I sure miss fresh milk. Makes the stuff they sell in the store taste like the shit it really is. At most a little straining through some cheesecloth if yer picky and dont like cream.

[n2ize]

Good things shouldn't include ordering a farmer to destroy all crops if a hint of their seed is detected. They should realize that there are many pollinators and seed carriers out there.

And, the nonsense of licensing per year is ridiculous. Buy seed, and use it whenever the hell the farmer decides to.

You can't patent DNA, and then say you are trying to do good things. It's like me patenting parts of the human genome, and charging everyone a license fee for it. It's as ridiculous as patenting software.

Yet there is some biotech company that supposedly has a patent on the human arm.

[rot]

Yet there is some biotech company that supposedly has a patent on the human arm.

:wall:

[ab1ga]

Yet there is some biotech company that supposedly has a patent on the human arm.

Probably an urban myth based on a distortion of an actual patent for a joint system which duplicates the movement of the human arm. According to Google, that patent dates to the late 1980s, so even it has expired.

73,

[n2ize]

Probably an urban myth based on a distortion of an actual patent for a joint system which duplicates the movement of the human arm. According to Google, that patent dates to the late 1980s, so even it has expired.

73,

It probably is a distortion which is why I said "supposedly". In any event it does indeed appear to be a myth.

[n2ize]

Hmmm, I rather doubt that. In the central valley in Ca., you have the largest dairies in the U.S. They demand (and pay for) the very best alfalfa hay they can get, and put supplements in it when they chop it. In fact, most of the really big ones won't even look at your hay if it hasn't been certified by a lab as to protein content (18-24% protein), with the hay down in the 18% range only being called "fair", quality wise. They stuff so much protein into the cows that they are up to 3 full milkings a day on some of them.

An organic dairy won't be feeding hay like that, as the hay has to be grown organically, too.

Hmmm... I never thought of that either. But then again, living where I live, I don't have much of a perspective on farming so that is interesting to hear. Now, does the protein content in the hay come from the hay itself ? or entirely from the supplements added ?

[n2ize]

You can't patent DNA, and then say you are trying to do good things. It's like me patenting parts of the human genome, and charging everyone a license fee for it. It's as ridiculous as patenting software.

And yet some software is patented :( The idea of patenting software always seemed to me to cross a fine line with respect to ethics. Sort of on the borderline of patenting arithmetic. I can understand copyrights with regards to a piece of software (much the same as copyright of a book) such that if I write some software to prevent someone from coming along and erasing my name from it and putting his name on it and saying he wrote it.

[kf0rt]

And yet some software is patented :( The idea of patenting software always seemed to me to cross a fine line with respect to ethics. Sort of on the borderline of patenting arithmetic. I can understand copyrights with regards to a piece of software (much the same as copyright of a book) such that if I write some software to prevent someone from coming along and erasing my name from it and putting his name on it and saying he wrote it.

The code itself is generally copyrighted. What the code does can be (and often is) patented. In essence, the patent is on what the code does, not the code itself. If I build a widget, I can patent it. If I write a widget, the same holds true. This is critical in a highly automated world, if you believe in patents at all. If I spend a million bucks coming up with something new and it happens to be embodied (patent legalese) in software, you can write your own version of it and be in violation of the patent even though you've copied nothing but the idea/concept. Patent law in software is all about protecting the investment, just like in the hardware world.

It's all Capitalism. Let's say I come up with an idea for a new and cool program. I pay my software guys their outrageous salaries ( ;) ) for a year to develop it into a product. It looks good, so I market it. Now the whole world knows about my cool idea and just by using it for an hour, they've learned things that cost me untold thousands of dollars in "R&D" to know. If someone was so inclined, they could now develop an essentially identical program (without ever seeing a line of my code) and do it much faster and much cheaper because they've now seen and can analyze what I did. That's what patents are for - to reward that investment.

Now, read the above and substitute the software for something in the hardware world and you'll see why there are software patents.

(Been there, got the patents.)

[rot]

The code itself is generally copyrighted. What the code does can be (and often is) patented. In essence, the patent is on what the code does, not the code itself. If I build a widget, I can patent it. If I write a widget, the same holds true. This is critical in a highly automated world, if you believe in patents at all. If I spend a million bucks coming up with something new and it happens to be embodied (patent legalese) in software, you can write your own version of it and be in violation of the patent even though you've copied nothing but the idea/concept. Patent law in software is all about protecting the investment, just like in the hardware world.

It's all Capitalism. Let's say I come up with an idea for a new and cool program. I pay my software guys their outrageous salaries ( ;) ) for a year to develop it into a product. It looks good, so I market it. Now the whole world knows about my cool idea and just by using it for an hour, they've learned things that cost me untold thousands of dollars in "R&D" to know. If someone was so inclined, they could now develop an essentially identical program (without ever seeing a line of my code) and do it much faster and much cheaper because they've now seen and can analyze what I did. That's what patents are for - to reward that investment.

Now, read the above and substitute the software for something in the hardware world and you'll see why there are software patents.

(Been there, got the patents.)

Kewlba...actually never pondered it from the software perspective. Not really my bag, but interesting nonetherless. Thank ye.
No one can patent a 0 or a 1, but you should be able to do shit with the combo and be rewarded for the sweat equitity. One could make and do a similar rationale for the base pair permutations of DNA....Just depends of the reward magnitude I guess...capitailism can take it to the obscene I rekkon..but I believe, especially within pharma such technology can swing the cost benefit towards the ones who should benefit...the patient...and still allow money makers to make some cash for stockholders.
Some cool stuff evolves around click chemistry as companyies like Allozyne pop up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allozyne
I have a personal interest in the concept of resolving demyelination issues via some of these developements. Ain't gonna happen in my day, but by 2050 and up some bitchin shit could be typical practice. I have no ethical dilemma with it as a hot button. Nor do I with stem cells...but I tend to be a trusting sort and believe good intention over the Frankenstein scenarios...but that is just me.

Kinda drifted away from organic food, and I gets to ramblin...so there ya go.

rot

[KC2UGV]

The code itself is generally copyrighted. What the code does can be (and often is) patented. In essence, the patent is on what the code does, not the code itself. If I build a widget, I can patent it. If I write a widget, the same holds true. This is critical in a highly automated world, if you believe in patents at all. If I spend a million bucks coming up with something new and it happens to be embodied (patent legalese) in software, you can write your own version of it and be in violation of the patent even though you've copied nothing but the idea/concept. Patent law in software is all about protecting the investment, just like in the hardware world.

It's all Capitalism. Let's say I come up with an idea for a new and cool program. I pay my software guys their outrageous salaries ( ;) ) for a year to develop it into a product. It looks good, so I market it. Now the whole world knows about my cool idea and just by using it for an hour, they've learned things that cost me untold thousands of dollars in "R&D" to know. If someone was so inclined, they could now develop an essentially identical program (without ever seeing a line of my code) and do it much faster and much cheaper because they've now seen and can analyze what I did. That's what patents are for - to reward that investment.

Now, read the above and substitute the software for something in the hardware world and you'll see why there are software patents.

(Been there, got the patents.)

Can you patent how the plot unfolds in a book? Should you be able to?

Can you patent a mathematical formula? Should you be able to?

Software patents do both: They patent the plot of the software (How to use a finger to select items on a screen), and all software is a mere mathematical formula (Albeit complex).

[kf0rt]

Can you patent how the plot unfolds in a book? Should you be able to?

Can you patent a mathematical formula? Should you be able to?

Software patents do both: They patent the plot of the software (How to use a finger to select items on a screen), and all software is a mere mathematical formula (Albeit complex).

I'd call that a stretch. There have been lawsuits over "plots" being ripped off (in books, songs AND movies, I believe). Should I be able to patent a new microprocessor or logic array? It's just math, afterall. And in fact, you can only patent the NEW part of something. E.g., I can patent a control system for a TV, but can't patent the TV itself.

Not sure what your objection is to software patents: like anything else patentable, software requires time and effort just as if it were something you could hold in your hand. And everything you can hold in your hand can be reduced to mathematical equations for that matter. It's just how Intellectual Property laws work. Probably not perfect, but the reason for these legal mechanisms is every bit as valid for software as hardware (the line between the two is already razor thin in a lot of cases).

You're trying to make an economics issue into one of philosophy. The economics are pretty simple, and that is what patent law addresses. Follow the money and all that. Do you think we'd have all the cool wizardry we have today if the software creators weren't somehow protected from theft? In many cases, the software is held to a higher IP standard than the hardware. How about medicines? Isn't that just software where the combination of ingredients is the "plot?"

The interesting part about patent and copyright law is that the only enforcers are the victims. There is no LEO agency driving the streets looking for patent scofflaws. The full economic burden falls on the inventor to both patent his ideas (not cheap) and enforce the law (via lawsuits) in the case where a patent is infringed. At the same time, patent trading and licensing is common with nothing more than a contract between the parties.

Should software patents be allowed? Different people will have different opinions. Without it though, there is some loss of incentive to bust ass for the next cool thing. Perfect? Maybe not, but I'll allow you to come up with the better approach. ;)

[KB3LAZ]

On a side note. Food polluted with antibiotics...something else I will avoid. Such foods (eggs are often in this category) cause me cramping, bloating, and gas. Just got back from the Dr after feeling like hell for two weeks and he said that my system was out of balance. Too many antibiotics and not enough probiotics. Now, we all know that the probiotic kick is just a study and most countries will not conceed to its claims of improving digestive health. Also many will state that antibiotic feed animals will lead to little to no transfer to the human digestive tract. That being said, after a few days of increased probiotics my stomach feels about 90% again.

Organic VS Processed/commercial VS non steroid VS non antibiotic. In the end I think it comes down the particular person. That being said. I think I will get back on my organic and non antibiotic foods. Sciences to back it up or not it helps. Even if only it is psychological and that reduces the stress level.

Carry on with your food gone software convo :P.

[n2ize]

Can you patent how the plot unfolds in a book? Should you be able to?

Can you patent a mathematical formula? Should you be able to?

Software patents do both: They patent the plot of the software (How to use a finger to select items on a screen), and all software is a mere mathematical formula (Albeit complex).

I am vehemently opposed to software patents. Software copyrights are OK. I can understand copyright law.

[n2ize]

I'd call that a stretch. There have been lawsuits over "plots" being ripped off (in books, songs AND movies, I believe). Should I be able to patent a new microprocessor or logic array? It's just math, afterall. And in fact, you can only patent the NEW part of something. E.g., I can patent a control system for a TV, but can't patent the TV itself.

Not sure what your objection is to software patents: like anything else patentable, software requires time and effort just as if it were something you could hold in your hand. And everything you can hold in your hand can be reduced to mathematical equations for that matter.

So then why not allow patenting of mathematical equations ? If I come up with a new equation then I should get a patent on it. Nonbody has patented 1+1=2 so far so why shouldn't I get a patent ?

[ab1ga]

So then why not allow patenting of mathematical equations ? If I come up with a new equation then I should get a patent on it. Nonbody has patented 1+1=2 so far so why shouldn't I get a patent ?

Prior art, sorry.
And while equations cannot be patented, algorithms can and have been, for instance some surrounding RSA encryption.

[n2ize]

I'd call that a stretch. There have been lawsuits over "plots" being ripped off (in books, songs AND movies, I believe). Should I be able to patent a new microprocessor or logic array? It's just math, afterall. [/quote[

It's hard to say because what was the outcome of those lawsuits and who was filing them and, were they actually patented or was it seen as a copyright violation ? Many ideas can be broken down into more fundamental components and those can be broken down further into even more fundamental components or arguments, etc. At what level should an idea be patentable ?
Why not allow for the patenting of mathematical ideas ?

[quote]Should software patents be allowed?

Absolutely not. Copyright yes... (as in writing a book via an established language).




Different people will have different opinions. Without it though, there is some loss of incentive to bust ass for the next cool thing. Perfect? Maybe not, but I'll allow you to come up with the better approach. ;)

On the other hand software patents can be an impediment to developing the next cool thing.

[KC2UGV]

I'd call that a stretch. There have been lawsuits over "plots" being ripped off (in books, songs AND movies, I believe). Should I be able to patent a new microprocessor or logic array? It's just math, afterall. And in fact, you can only patent the NEW part of something. E.g., I can patent a control system for a TV, but can't patent the TV itself.


No, you can not patent a mathematical expression, such as a logic array.

Math is a natural law of the universe, and such laws are no more patentable than the law of gravity; or the law that certain RNA will recombine into certain DNA.



Not sure what your objection is to software patents: like anything else patentable, software requires time and effort just as if it were something you could hold in your hand. And everything you can hold in your hand can be reduced to mathematical equations for that matter. It's just how Intellectual Property laws work. Probably not perfect, but the reason for these legal mechanisms is every bit as valid for software as hardware (the line between the two is already razor thin in a lot of cases).


The objection to software patents is that they try to do something patents were never intended for. Software can be copywritten, not patented. Software is purely math, and as such, is a natural law of the universes.

Imagine if Alan Turing patented the Turing machine. Imagine who little would have occurred in the computer science field. Notice it's called "Computer Science".

Now, imagine if someone patented other sciences, like seismology. Imagine if the Richter Scale was patented? Or, if we patented the orbital mechanics of planets.

All of those took lots of time and resources to research.



You're trying to make an economics issue into one of philosophy. The economics are pretty simple, and that is what patent law addresses. Follow the money and all that. Do you think we'd have all the cool wizardry we have today if the software creators weren't somehow protected from theft? In many cases, the software is held to a higher IP standard than the hardware. How about medicines? Isn't that just software where the combination of ingredients is the "plot?"


Economics is philosophy. Hence, why we have many "Schools of Thought" when it comes to economics. And, I don't think drugs should be patentable. It's immoral and abhorrent to it's core, and one reason why major pharmas have such a stranglehold on us in the US.



The interesting part about patent and copyright law is that the only enforcers are the victims. There is no LEO agency driving the streets looking for patent scofflaws. The full economic burden falls on the inventor to both patent his ideas (not cheap) and enforce the law (via lawsuits) in the case where a patent is infringed. At the same time, patent trading and licensing is common with nothing more than a contract between the parties.


Wrong. You and I are on the hook for the bill to enforce superfluous patents. The enforcer is the government, thanks to WIPO, and we've turned civil matters into penal matters.

Case in point: Can you go to jail for not paying a gas bill? No. But, you can go to jail, and sit there for quite some time for not paying a licensing fee.



Should software patents be allowed? Different people will have different opinions. Without it though, there is some loss of incentive to bust ass for the next cool thing. Perfect? Maybe not, but I'll allow you to come up with the better approach. ;)

Wrong. Without software patents, people would be free to innovate, and not worry about violating a patent covering finger swipes on a screen (Like they are now), or a patent covering textual display of web page loading progress using minimal screen real estate (Like they are now).

Have you seen the patent suits out there? Have you seen how crippling software patent suits are? They bring a company to bankruptcy, without ever seeing a court room.

[W3WN]

Very true. Furthermore, "organically grown" doesn't necessarily mean the food is free of pesticides. It is entirely possible an "organic farmer" may use pesticides to save an endangered crop. Matter of fact many so called "organic vegetables" tested show definite levels of pesticide residues, sometimes comparable to levels found in non-organically grown foods.
Exactly. The use of the word "organic" is not at present regulated by the FDA or USDA (and I'm not saying it should be!) so very often, it means whatever the seller wants it to mean.

I don't have a problem with "organic" meats and veges etc., when the use of the word means no steroids & antibiotics (for meat obviously), no extra processing, no chemical sprays or chemical pesticides... things like that. There are some real concerns about what's being put into some of our foodstuff to make it more marketable, as opposed to more palatable.

But some of the claims are over the top... and I suspect that at least sometimes, the only difference between the "organic" and "non-organic" produce from a particular source is the label that's slapped on the case or packaging when it's shipped to market.

And I also grow my own. It may be cheaper to buy it, but there's a certain satisfaction in growing your own garden that the supermarket just can't match. And I find the tomatoes and peppers I grow taste MUCH better, in my own biased opinion...

[W3WN]

Yet there is some biotech company that supposedly has a patent on the human arm.
How is that possible? Gil "The Arm" Hamilton is a fictional character in a series of SciFi stories...

[NQ6U]

Exactly. The use of the word "organic" is not at present regulated by the FDA or USDA (and I'm not saying it should be!) so very often, it means whatever the seller wants it to mean.

Here in California, if you label your produce "organic", it damned well better be organic lest you find yourself in trouble with The Authorities. After much abuse of the term back in the early days, the state stepped in to certify organic farmers and the definition is now quite clear. There is a list of which processes and chemicals are allowed and if you use anything that's not on the list, you may not sell your produce as "organic."

[KB3LAZ]

Exactly. The use of the word "organic" is not at present regulated by the FDA or USDA (and I'm not saying it should be!) so very often, it means whatever the seller wants it to mean.

I don't have a problem with "organic" meats and veges etc., when the use of the word means no steroids & antibiotics (for meat obviously), no extra processing, no chemical sprays or chemical pesticides... things like that. There are some real concerns about what's being put into some of our foodstuff to make it more marketable, as opposed to more palatable.

But some of the claims are over the top... and I suspect that at least sometimes, the only difference between the "organic" and "non-organic" produce from a particular source is the label that's slapped on the case or packaging when it's shipped to market.

And I also grow my own. It may be cheaper to buy it, but there's a certain satisfaction in growing your own garden that the supermarket just can't match. And I find the tomatoes and peppers I grow taste MUCH better, in my own biased opinion...

Speaking of organic meat. I have 100 lbs of rabbit I raised in the freezer now. Which I have been eating rater than chicken. I know what I feed them. No antibiotics or steroids. No store bought food at all.

[rot]

Organic "whatevers" has the challenge of refocusing the "commons" to which they tap into. Current food production and scale agribusiness focuses on a "common" which spans a continent and in some cases a global common. In this scope all kind of phucked up practices(i.e. shelf life extension methods, yeild improvement methods, yadda) make significant buck bang and will occur for them to sustain and keep their pricing structure. Their bottom line is customer driven as with anything else. When the buyers(customers) accept a higher price may necessary to support entities that focus on local production and the enhanced utility that this offers it will at least offer Organic operations the possiblity to max and diversify using practices which are not mass inventory/distribution enhancement and still stay within their common. At that point the price deal will resolve itself, IMHO. In a perfect world for me there would be nothing better than being able to buy/generate everything at the local common foodwise. We have a couple of Organic farms with respect to beef and some veg. The beef dude is great simply because he is his own butcher as well and you can get exactly what you want, but not always when you want it. I'll pay it and I wish there where tons more. There used to be a lady who drove a veg truck around town selling all kinds of crap..it was great..but she is long gone..and probably wil never appear again. If local production has to tag themselves Organic, charge more, shit so what I'm for it.
I mean damn, anybody with a bucket, some water, dirt, and sunshine can grow a damn tomato. Why the hell buy the things at FoodKitty and then bitch about the quality??? Of course, I realize if you are in prison doing solitary confinement, it may be a bit tough to grow a 'mater, but at least as far as I know this should not be the case on the Island forum.
Overall I vote "Yea" on the Organic (local) deal and wish they where more prevalent throught the land. I used to have patch of spinach which absolutely rocked for salads...really not that hard to do...but at home people get slack and stuff. Usually you can go the the farm and talk to the people about growing your own..its no big deal with them...they just like growing stuff and of course they have to pay for stuff too and it is a business. It's a good thing for everybody..at least from the few I have come in contact with.
So to the original premise of the thread, I would say Organic food "Good" and necessary as well if you want to start to see a change in the way we do things.
Over,
rot

[n2ize]

Growing food yourself ? Good and a nice activity. Buying locally grown organic produce ?? Nice. But none of the above necessary for health. Commercially grown foods are generally just as good.

[kb1qkq]

Recently I have been hearing claims that food grown using "natural fertilizers" , such as manure, decayed plant matter, decayed food materials, are somehow superior to foods grown using inorganic chemical fertilizers. Nothing can be further from the truth. Plants which derive nutrients from the soil and water end up having to extract and convert the nutrients and materials in "organic fertilizers" to the same nutrients found in inorganic chemical fertilizers. To the plant both are the same.

So, about the only thing different between "organically grown food" versus "non-organically grown food" is the price, the former generally being more expensive. Organic food ? Nice but not necessary.

The only difference is not just price and commercially grown is not always just as good. It's so much deeper than just the fertilizer used.

There is more to "organic" than just fertilizer. There is also more to fertilizer than just nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium such as is in commercial trip 10 or 5 10 5. Organic matter, plant, manure also adds desirable qualities and improves the growing soil resulting in better crop yields, better drainage, stronger and deeper roots. Strong, deep roots give a healthier plant in many ways. I compost old hay in a pile, manure from my Dexter beef cattle and anything organic from the kitchen. I also use 10 10 10 (trip 10) tilled under and or side dressed for a time release, peat, sand, lime...

My crops? Bug control, cayenne, my fingers on a daily walk thru, bug traps vs poison, predator bugs like ladybugs, nemotodes and a guinea hen will pick bugs off and not harm a leaf. Garden snakes and the many fence lizards and skinks help.

Speaking of non organic pesticides some are much worse. Sevin is not organic but much safer than other chemicals produced.

In KY to be get or keep certified "organic" you have to already be certified or if you apply prove nothing on the soil except organic matter for the prior 5 years. Takes inspections also.

Plants do leech and can retain anything in the soil or dusted on. Want to eat commercial crops grown over an old covered landfill? Grown in human manure or sewerage like some countries?

Do I trust organic labels in large chains? No, comes from all over including South America, Mexico, China.
Local farmers market? yes, but they usually don't label and prices competitive. Most of us grow organic as an unspoken word because we eat it too.

Free range chicken vs force grown chicken in a small dirty space injected with antibiotics because of the filth and disease? Give me a free range chicken or egg any day. Get a free range or even farm egg and crack it next to a store bought and compare.

My beef? Natural, grass fed. A little sweet grain (quart each) as a treat 2X a week to keep them bucket trained to follow me. Not taken off pasture, crowded, injected, grain fattened to a 80/20%.

[KB3LAZ]

Growing food yourself ? Good and a nice activity. Buying locally grown organic produce ?? Nice. But none of the above necessary for health. Commercially grown foods are generally just as good.

You keep saying that. Then, can you explain why processed foods bind me up, cause gas, and bloating where as fresh foods do not? IMO a healthy and properly functioning digestive tract is an important part of my overall health. Without these problems I am more active and feel like a difference person with higher drive. Now I realize that I can get fresh veggies that are not organic and they dont do this either but the canned goods do. So I suppose its not the organic aspect so much as the non processed.

[kb1qkq]

Don't eat processed anything, read labels and you'll be cured. Read a jar of Jif compared to an all natural (just peanuts). Soda has phosphoric acid simply for "mouth feel" Coke will take off rust and eat nails, eat a piece of bacon overnight. Pepsi was sued for a mouse in a can. Pepsi lawyers replied "impossible, the mouse would have dissolved in the acid by the time it was canned to the time you drank it" This the kind of stuff you want in your body?

[n2ize]

This thread is not reallly about processed versus non-processed foods. It is about "organically grown vegetables" versus "non-organically grown" vegetables.

Yes I would say that it probably is a good idea to eat fewer processed foods and particularly highly processed foods. I very rarely drink soda. Processed meats like cold cuts or frankfurters I enjoy occasionally I would say moderation is the key and of course, overly processed foods should be limited. A balanced and healthy diet is a good idea. Adding organically grown vegetables into the mix is certainly fine as well but not entirely necessary.

[kb1qkq]

Exactly. The use of the word "organic" is not at present regulated by the FDA or USDA


UDSA on organic certification and labeling.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo

"The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and the
National Organic Program (NOP) assure consumers
that the organic agricultural products they purchase
are produced, processed, and certifi ed to consistent
national organic standards....."

"Penalties for misuse of labels;
A civil penalty of up to $11,000 can be levied on
any person who knowingly sells or labels as organic
a product that is not produced and handled in
accordance with the National Organic Program’s
regulations"

[KB3LAZ]

This thread is not reallly about processed versus non-processed foods. It is about "organically grown vegetables" versus "non-organically grown" vegetables.

Yes I would say that it probably is a good idea to eat fewer processed foods and particularly highly processed foods. I very rarely drink soda. Processed meats like cold cuts or frankfurters I enjoy occasionally I would say moderation is the key and of course, overly processed foods should be limited. A balanced and healthy diet is a good idea. Adding organically grown vegetables into the mix is certainly fine as well but not entirely necessary.

Self grown organic veggies are good for my psyche. Psychosomatic I suppose.

[KB3LAZ]

Okay now this leads me to a question. How can there be such a thing as processed organic food. It may have been organic at one time but the second it is processed it has become a science experiment.

Cheese should never be able to sit out on the shelf for months on end...Milk either. Yuck, yuck!

[n2ize]

Can you patent how the plot unfolds in a book? Should you be able to?

Can you patent a mathematical formula? Should you be able to?

.

I guess you cannot patent the formula but you can patent what the formula does. So I suppse if a physicist or engineer derives a mathematical formula to calculate something new then what the formula does can be patented.... I am not saying I would agree with such patents being granted but it seems as if the rationale for patents is as it is then yes, I guess a mathematical formula can be patented.

[n2ize]

Okay now this leads me to a question. How can there be such a thing as processed organic food. It may have been organic at one time but the second it is processed it has become a science experiment.

Cheese should never be able to sit out on the shelf for months on end...Milk either. Yuck, yuck!

Theoretically if you sterilize the milk and place it into a sealed sterile container it can remain on the shelf for a long period of time. The milk is pure, it is just in a state where bacteria cannot readily reach it and start spoiling it. The same is true for many canned goods. They are heated to kill bacteria and then sealed thus nasty and dangerous bacteria is unable to grow and produce toxins.

The whole idea behind cheese is to provide a long shelf life. many fine chesses can remain for very long periods of time without spoiling. I don't see processing as necessarily a bad thing. In addition to enabling food to be stored for use without it rapidly spoiling, processing has also reduced the likelihood of various types of food poisoning.

However, i do think it is a good idea to avoid certain kinds of overly processed foods or to limit them to a degree.

[KC2UGV]

Cheese should never be able to sit out on the shelf for months on end...Milk either. Yuck, yuck!

Many cheeses are made to sit on a shelf for months. In fact, it's how many are made :) You should see a video of exploding swiss wheels :)

[KB3LAZ]

Theoretically if you sterilize the milk and place it into a sealed sterile container it can remain on the shelf for a long period of time. The milk is pure, it is just in a state where bacteria cannot readily reach it and start spoiling it. The same is true for many canned goods. They are heated to kill bacteria and then sealed thus nasty and dangerous bacteria is unable to grow and produce toxins.

The whole idea behind cheese is to provide a long shelf life. many fine chesses can remain for very long periods of time without spoiling. I don't see processing as necessarily a bad thing. In addition to enabling food to be stored for use without it rapidly spoiling, processing has also reduced the likelihood of various types of food poisoning.

However, i do think it is a good idea to avoid certain kinds of overly processed foods or to limit them to a degree.

Erm..I worked at Deans. There is a reason I dont drink milk. 1/2 gallon water, 1/4 gallon sugar, 1/4 gallon milk. As for cheese I was thinking things like Velveeta...not cheese but rather goat shit.

Either way, fresh foods seem to agree with me better. Idk if it is the preservation methods or what but I just cant digest preserves. Salt in particular does very bad things to me.

Now, in fact I have cut dairy out altogether as well as red meat. No lower back pain (ie no gas/bloating) and I have more energy. Fruits, nuts, berries, chicken, and fish (very little roughage like lettuces though). All fresh ofc. I guess my digestive tract gives me a set bias.

[KB3LAZ]

Many cheeses are made to sit on a shelf for months. In fact, it's how many are made :) You should see a video of exploding swiss wheels :)

How come I gotta keep it in the fridge? If I bring it home and leave it on the counter it gets all icky. (Note, I know little about cheese as I dont much care for it.)..Eh Ill look it up.

[KC2UGV]

How come I gotta keep it in the fridge? If I bring it home and leave it on the counter it gets all icky. (Note, I know little about cheese as I dont much care for it.)..Eh Ill look it up.

Some cheeses need to be refrigerated (Soft ones). Hard cheeses usually don't. Go to a cheese shop, and look where they store the wheels.

[W3WN]

Exactly. The use of the word "organic" is not at present regulated by the FDA or USDA (and I'm not saying it should be!) so very often, it means whatever the seller wants it to mean.
UDSA on organic certification and labeling.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo

< snip >I was not aware of this, and I stand corrected.

With that in mind, though, keep in mind that the FDA recognizes different levels of "organic" products, and there are other labels that may be used that the consumer may presume means the same thing (the PDF noted goes into detail). So the bottom line is, read the label carefully. And know what the different terms and levels actually mean.

[W3WN]

Okay now this leads me to a question. How can there be such a thing as processed organic food. It may have been organic at one time but the second it is processed it has become a science experiment.
< snip >Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food) is your friend:
Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods that do not involve modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Pesticides) and chemical fertilizers (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Chemical_fertilizers), do not contain genetically modified organisms (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Genetically_modified_organisms), and are not processed using irradiation (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Irradiation), industrial solvents, or chemical food additives (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Food_additives).[1] (http://forums.hamisland.net/#cite_note-0)
Processed organic food usually contains only organic ingredients. If non-organic ingredients are present, at least a certain percentage of the food's total plant and animal ingredients must be organic (95% in the United States,[8] (http://forums.hamisland.net/#cite_note-7) Canada, and Australia) and any non-organically produced ingredients are subject to various agricultural requirements. Foods claiming to be organic must be free of artificial food additives (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Food_additives), and are often processed with fewer artificial methods, materials and conditions, such as chemical ripening (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/SmartFresh), food irradiation (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Food_irradiation), and genetically modified (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Genetically_modified) ingredients. Pesticides are allowed so long as they are not synthetic.

[kb1qkq]

I was not aware of this, and I stand corrected.

With that in mind, though, keep in mind that the FDA recognizes different levels of "organic" products, and there are other labels that may be used that the consumer may presume means the same thing (the PDF noted goes into detail). So the bottom line is, read the label carefully. And know what the different terms and levels actually mean.

I don't feel FDA, USDA has all the answers but they are trying. Some of what they come up with I disagree, such as
no raw milk "sales" in all states? Let it be MY choice. Allowable carcinogens in food and product? Toothpaste even has it, unless you get some pure "Toms of Maine". That may not be "necessary" either but I'll pass on the carcinogens thank you. What defines "allowable" when it not only can be harmful but can be avoided?

Labels are very important. It didn't bother me as much when I was younger but I have become much more conscious of what goes into my body.

Sure, "organic may not be necessary" but I still feel it is "cleaner", healthier and tastier. I grow crops for market and raise livestock. It's all organic and I'm proud of it, I know exactly what it is grown in and what goes on it.

[KB3LAZ]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food) is your friend:

Exactly, so after they are processed they are Frankenstein. =P

[rot]

Water content is usually the key indicator of whether or not food will last (shelf life). Free water measured as water activity is a classic correlatable indicator of potential mcrobial growth. Stuff like cheese etc has very low water activity and will last a long time on the shelf. A product with a high water content (i.e milk) will need some kind of processing/packaging to keep it for going yank.... Anytime a food processor can replace water with solids in a formulation if possible, they will for shelf life extension. This is why HFCS is used everywhere..cheap solids to keep junk extended for a few extra days to weeks. I would venture to say that HFCS is used more commonly for shelf life extension than for its sweetness...not relly sure on that..just a guess.

rot

[KB3LAZ]

Water content is usually the key indicator of whether or not food will last (shelf life). Free water measured as water activity is a classic correlatable indicator of potential mcrobial growth. Stuff like cheese etc has very low water activity and will last a long time on the shelf. A product with a high water content (i.e milk) will need some kind of processing/packaging to keep it for going yank.... Anytime a food processor can replace water with solids in a formulation if possible, they will for shelf life extension. This is why HFCS is used everywhere..cheap solids to keep junk extended for a few extra days to weeks. I would venture to say that HFCS is used more commonly for shelf life extension than for its sweetness...not relly sure on that..just a guess.

rot

Neat. :)