Green Living
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Just wanted to share some information.
I'm writing a research paper, and I have learned some very interesting things. I was just wondering if any of you ladies have ever researched any of these things, or if you are interested in learning more about them? Anyway, here is my thesis statement:
Research shows that in an effort to be more health conscious and environmentally friendly, consumers have created a rise in demand for soy-based products, certified organic food, and plant-derived fuels; and a result, these industries are actually growing contributors to deforestation and environmental degradation.
Thoughts? Ideas? Opinions? Discuss.
Re: Just wanted to share some information.
Have you actually found support for those claims, or is that what you expect to find? If the latter, it would be better (less biased) to come at it from an angle of, "Does research find that in an effort..." It also sounds like an odd combination of things to look at in your research. Perhaps narrowing it down to just soy, or soy and corn (if you want to look at fuels) would be a more focused thesis.
Growing population also contributes to the demand for these things.
Regarding soy, most people i know who live in ways to minimize their environmental impacts and improve personal health actually avoid soy or use it only in moderation, and when they do choose organic. This avoids one of the major concerns with soy, which is that most conventional soy available in the US is GM (and the social concerns of Monsanto control of the soy market).
As you mentioned, plant-derived fuels are contentious, though generally the argument is that it is detracting from food-producing agriculture and increasing use of GM corn. Another agricultural activity that does this is conventional meat production.
What support are you suggesting for the growing of organic foods resulting in deforestation and environmental degradation? Are you referring to particular crops or regions? Agriculture in general does this; organic agriculture decreases the chemical burden on the environment and is generally more responsible in other ways (reducing soil depletion, etc.).
Best sound ever: baby's heartbeat! (Heard @ 10w1d)
Interesting. My experience is actually the opposite. Where I live soy = healthy. Not a lot of people know about Monsanto. Truth be told, I actually did not know about Monsanto and their politics until I saw "Food, Inc" 2 years ago. I try to educate people about Monsanto, but it usually falls on deaf ears.
Additionally, when people switch over to vegetables or fruits, a lot of people balk at organic prices (this applies to soy too). I try to buy organic and local, but sometimes price is really prohibitive. People from low income have a hard enough time as it is eating healthy, not to mention organic.
Unfortunately for a lot of people, personal health does not always equate to environmental health. I have no research to cite, just personal anecdotal evidence! But I am glad your experience is a bit different than mine!
I have absolutely found support for all of those claims; otherwise it would not be a very good thesis statement.
My topic is actually deforestation, so these subjects are not too broad at all. I need to fill 10-15 pages. The thesis is supposed to claim something that is debateable, and obviously the fact that organic farming may be a cause for deforestation is just that. The whole point of my paper is what I wrote in my thesis statement.
With regards to organic food, I was mostly referring to organic sugar. One company that supplies a major part of organic sugar in the US has found it less time consuming and less costly to clear forest for their organic croplands rather than convert their conventional croplands. Also, many organic croplands are subjected to monocropping- bad for the soil. USDA organic standards also allow for manure from industrial poultry farms to be used as fertilizer.
Soy is also a huge contributor to deforestation, but that is mostly because it is grown to supply the industrial cattle ranches. I found a way to fit it into my paper.
Biofuels, while clean-burning and renewable since it is plant derived, are grown on land that is has been deforested, thus defeating its purpose. More carbon is emitted during the process of deforesting the cropslands and then sewing and harvesting the crops than is actually saved by using the fuels produced.
I was only able to write my thesis statement after I had completed the research, and my sources are definitely credible.
I meant to address this more in depth as well. Many processed foods that are certified organic are allowed to contain ingredients that are not organic if no organic alternative was commercially available. Conventional soy lecithin can be found in many foods that are certified organic.
There is also a website that rates organic soy companies.
http://www.cornucopia.org/soysurvey/OrganicSoyReport/behindthebean_color_final.pdf
If you read through the document, you will find that not every organic brand of soy is the same; some are more reputable and trustworthy than others. Unfortunately, an organic lable isn't always what it seems.
This also supports my earlier point about personal health not equating to environmental health. People who want to be overall healthy generally follow simple rules - eat well (fruits, veggies, low fat, etc) and exercise. And the people who do want to take the step further and try to decrease their environmental impact they generally just go "organic," not knowing that there are differences amongst the labeling. It was not until only a couple years ago I stopped buying Horizon or Silk products. Trying to support the correct type of organic company can be very confusing and not a lot of people have time (or care) to do this type of research!
Chrome ate my extensive, carefully articulated and supported/referenced reply earlier this week, so it took me a while to come back to this.
First, a few notes:
- Biofuels are not cleaner than the fossil fuels they replace. The point of biofuels isn't to prevent deforestation (as you implied in your reply), but to meet the demand that is currently met by finite fossil fuels.
- Humans are not separate from the environment; what is healthful for one is healthful for the other. (I know that wasn't your statement, but it was part of the thread.)
- You wrote that "many organic croplands are subjected to monocropping- bad for the soil." Monoculture is detrimental to soil (and is an environmental stress in other ways) and is common practice in conventional farming. It is less common in organic farming because rotating and mixing crops are used (effectively) as means to reduce soil depletion, decrease reliance on fertilizers (of all types; because nutrients, esp. nitrogen are returned to the soil by n-fixing plants, including soy) and decreased exposure to crop loss by disease/pests.
In short, my concern is that your statements and your support grossly oversimplify the issues you bring up. Sure "organic farming may be a cause for deforestation," but that's not the issue. FARMING is a cause for deforestation and organic farming is just one type of farming (that you'll find with further research is actually *less* taxing that its conventional counterparts).
While the problems you listed with organic sugar are true, they don't automatically generalize to other organic crops. Sugar (along with soy and corn) is one of the most contentious crops, organic or otherwise, for many reasons (from human rights to human health and environmental impacts). It isn't useful to apply that information to other contexts without confirming the appropriateness of doing so.
The cattle/soy issue is another example of oversimplification. Yes, organic and conventional grain-fed cattle farming relies on soy. However, the demand for *organic* (soy/beef/dairy) isn't the problem. It's the demand for soy/beef/dairy, which boils down to (over-)consumption/waste and human population, as well as the issues surrounding industrial farming.
Your original and subsequent statements imply that you promote conventional agriculture to organic because of the stress of organic farming on the environment. However, a much more constructive approach than the "organic crops tax the environment so we should avoid them" tact you seem to be arguing would be one that promotes informed and careful purchasing. We, as consumers, need to inform ourselves about the products we buy (their sources and ingredients, whether they are conventional/organic, other issues regarding human rights, environmental welfare and personal health, corporate practices, etc.), and, as a society, need to be informed about and make changes to moderate our growth and consumption (including a decreased reliance on low-occupancy vehicles to get to/from our huge houses).
Best sound ever: baby's heartbeat! (Heard @ 10w1d)