Is organic food really any better than conventional?
Replies
-
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »He's also among the first to admit that feeding an entire nation entirely on organic produce and organically-raised animals would be impossible.
I saw something the other day indicating something like 20% of waste, accounting for that would make a significant difference.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. However, one thing he was referencing was the ease with which an organic crop can be wiped out, in comparison with a conventionally raised crop. Yes, organic farmers can and do use some pesticides, but they are often less effective than those used by conventional farmers. Heirloom seeds are also more expensive and tend to be less hardy than seeds developed to grow in certain areas or to have certain resistances. He's developed a tomato that grows insanely well in his tiny micro-environment, but it's not doing nearly as well at my home, where the soil is different, even though we barely live 10 miles from each other.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: we expect industries to grow, change, and improve over time. Every industry except farming. If a lawyer or a steel mill or an army or a teacher used 18th or 19th century practices, then we'd say that person or group was behind the times and lacking credibility. Farming and ranching practices have improved with the advent of science and learning--why in the world do we expect these industries to remain rooted in times that fed fewer people and that had less safe practices when so much new and better technology makes our food safer and more abundant?
Apologies, a symptom of having a similar discussion elsewhere. As far as yields are concerned, where consumer waste is at 20% and the level of waste in a supply chain that's predicated on uniformity and size, the difference isn't that great. There is a difference, but is that a bad thing?
I'm not suggesting a wholesale movement to an organic industry is viable. The disruptive change in the shape of both production and distribution industries would be significant, and painful. I do acknowledge hat the industries in the US and the UK are heavily state supported, and driven by demand. While the state could influence the industry I personally wouldn't support that. The state plays too large a part as it is in my view.
To address your point about the movement in the industry as our understanding and technology evolves. Is uncritical adoption of techniques desirable, or should our understanding be applied in a range of different ways. Some people want food produced in vast monocultures that require a significant amount of intervention to assure uniformity of produce, others see the application of our understanding being more appropriately deployed in a lower impact way.
I've alluded upthread to some of the principles of the Soil Association standards, aimed at a sustainable system that minimises the need for interventions. Yes it's more complex, and it can be vulnerable. The actions of neighbouring farms have the potential to destabilise the system. The application of understanding means that organic farming moves on as well. I wouldn't recognise your assertion that organic means being rooted in the 18th or 19th centuries.
I've also mentioned upthread the farming co-operative that I buy from. I don't find it any more expensive than buying from the supermarket. One of the benefits of supporting them is, as well as understanding the supply chain I also know that their employees are well treated, with decent wages, conditions and employee ownership in the wider business. That's no bad thing as well.
I'm still not following you, since you seem to write a lot and not make your point totally clear.
Again apologies, perhaps I've assumed too much. In discussing yield I was addressing your prior point around yield.
To simplify things far more than I had previously anticipated:
I would agree that the current demand market can't be satisfied by an all organic production industry.
An all organic industry would require significant disruption in both the production side, and the distribution and retail side. That level of disruption is neither achievable, or desirable.
If behaviours in the demand marketplace and both the production and distribution/ retail industry changed sufficiently an all organic industry could meet the requirements, however again I don't believe that is either achievable or desirable.Third, I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that new practices be "uncritically" accepted. Many studies exist on a wide variety of farming-related practices and many farmers now have degrees in agriculture-related fields. To imply that farmers and agriculture are not based in science is a specious argument.
Perhaps I've misinterpreted your assertion that as science allows us to do something, we should just do it. Many farmers in the UK marketplace are also well educated in their industry. Many choose to stick with what in this thread we're describing as conventional farming, many choose to implement organic principles, and many take that as far as certifying using an established standard. Neither is correct, but they all make their choices, and consumers make their choices about what to buy.
A number in this thread have talked about the cost of organic. I can only assume that in the US the shape of the market means that the price differential is disproportionate. In the UK it's a pretty healthy pattern where pricing isn't significantly different, if at all.Finally, I am not equating organic farming to farming in previous centuries. I am saying, however, that most people seem to have the expectation that, in order be "good" farms/farmers, they have to have the red barns with the hex sign and rooster weathervane, free-range chickens scratching in the dust, and dozens of row crops in dozens of varieties in the fields. Plus scores for overalls, straw hats, and sitting in the fields at night armed with a shotgun to ward off varmints.
I wouldn't disagree that many people don't understand where their food comes from and have an idealised view of what life is like within the industry.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »He's also among the first to admit that feeding an entire nation entirely on organic produce and organically-raised animals would be impossible.
I saw something the other day indicating something like 20% of waste, accounting for that would make a significant difference.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. However, one thing he was referencing was the ease with which an organic crop can be wiped out, in comparison with a conventionally raised crop. Yes, organic farmers can and do use some pesticides, but they are often less effective than those used by conventional farmers. Heirloom seeds are also more expensive and tend to be less hardy than seeds developed to grow in certain areas or to have certain resistances. He's developed a tomato that grows insanely well in his tiny micro-environment, but it's not doing nearly as well at my home, where the soil is different, even though we barely live 10 miles from each other.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: we expect industries to grow, change, and improve over time. Every industry except farming. If a lawyer or a steel mill or an army or a teacher used 18th or 19th century practices, then we'd say that person or group was behind the times and lacking credibility. Farming and ranching practices have improved with the advent of science and learning--why in the world do we expect these industries to remain rooted in times that fed fewer people and that had less safe practices when so much new and better technology makes our food safer and more abundant?
Apologies, a symptom of having a similar discussion elsewhere. As far as yields are concerned, where consumer waste is at 20% and the level of waste in a supply chain that's predicated on uniformity and size, the difference isn't that great. There is a difference, but is that a bad thing?
I'm not suggesting a wholesale movement to an organic industry is viable. The disruptive change in the shape of both production and distribution industries would be significant, and painful. I do acknowledge hat the industries in the US and the UK are heavily state supported, and driven by demand. While the state could influence the industry I personally wouldn't support that. The state plays too large a part as it is in my view.
To address your point about the movement in the industry as our understanding and technology evolves. Is uncritical adoption of techniques desirable, or should our understanding be applied in a range of different ways. Some people want food produced in vast monocultures that require a significant amount of intervention to assure uniformity of produce, others see the application of our understanding being more appropriately deployed in a lower impact way.
I've alluded upthread to some of the principles of the Soil Association standards, aimed at a sustainable system that minimises the need for interventions. Yes it's more complex, and it can be vulnerable. The actions of neighbouring farms have the potential to destabilise the system. The application of understanding means that organic farming moves on as well. I wouldn't recognise your assertion that organic means being rooted in the 18th or 19th centuries.
I've also mentioned upthread the farming co-operative that I buy from. I don't find it any more expensive than buying from the supermarket. One of the benefits of supporting them is, as well as understanding the supply chain I also know that their employees are well treated, with decent wages, conditions and employee ownership in the wider business. That's no bad thing as well.
I'm still not following you, since you seem to write a lot and not make your point totally clear.
Again apologies, perhaps I've assumed too much. In discussing yield I was addressing your prior point around yield.
To simplify things far more than I had previously anticipated:
I would agree that the current demand market can't be satisfied by an all organic production industry.
An all organic industry would require significant disruption in both the production side, and the distribution and retail side. That level of disruption is neither achievable, or desirable.
If behaviours in the demand marketplace and both the production and distribution/ retail industry changed sufficiently an all organic industry could meet the requirements, however again I don't believe that is either achievable or desirable.Third, I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that new practices be "uncritically" accepted. Many studies exist on a wide variety of farming-related practices and many farmers now have degrees in agriculture-related fields. To imply that farmers and agriculture are not based in science is a specious argument.
Perhaps I've misinterpreted your assertion that as science allows us to do something, we should just do it. Many farmers in the UK marketplace are also well educated in their industry. Many choose to stick with what in this thread we're describing as conventional farming, many choose to implement organic principles, and many take that as far as certifying using an established standard. Neither is correct, but they all make their choices, and consumers make their choices about what to buy.
A number in this thread have talked about the cos of organic. I can only assume that in the US the shape of the market means that the price differential is disproportionate. In the UK it's a pretty healthy pattern where pricing isn't significantly different, if at all.Finally, I am not equating organic farming to farming in previous centuries. I am saying, however, that most people seem to have the expectation that, in order be "good" farms/farmers, they have to have the red barns with the hex sign and rooster weathervane, free-range chickens scratching in the dust, and dozens of row crops in dozens of varieties in the fields. Plus scores for overalls, straw hats, and sitting in the fields at night armed with a shotgun to ward off varmints.
I wouldn't disagree that many people don't understand where their food comes from and have an idealised view of what life is like within the industry.
Wow, condescending much?
I never mentioned anything about a lack of understanding of supply and demand. I learned all I wanted to know about the free marketplace in grade school and at university, thanks. I still don't get your point about waste. At what point do you feel waste occurs and how on God's green earth did you arrive at 20%?
I never made that assertion. My "assertion" is that science and other industries have been permitted to move forward, but that farming is expected to remain static lest they sin by profiting from their labors. The "organic" movement is part of that expectation--and is, essentially, what I consider a return to the Naturalism and Romanticism movements of a couple of centuries ago. Society and science regressed during that period and obviously we have not learned from our mistakes.
There is a substantial difference between the prices of organic and, for the lack of a better word, ordinary produce (eggs, milk, meat, etc.). If I sell my meat rabbits instead of eating them, I can sell them for a premium price because they were raised "organically." It's pretty sad, really.0 -
Organic i find tasteless home grown when you can0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »
Giving people the choice of eating animals that a treated like crap shoved with antibiotics or eating animals that are living happy lives and are clean of all harmful things.0 -
Again, organic has nothing to do with animal treatment and is generally a designation for produce. It's perfectly possible to have animals fed organic feed and yet treated poorly (however you define it).
Agree that it's good we have choices, though, but labels are often misleading.0 -
It's really based on pesticides and whether the "shell" of the food won't allow any aborption of the pesticide into the pulp of the food itself. For example, avocado shells should be tolerant enough to not allow a pesticide to penetrate it - whereas a tomato's wouldn't. I base my purchases on whether I would either eat the entire food with the outer shell on or whether the shell itself is strong enough to withstand the pesticide's ability to absorb into the food.0
-
I only buy organic apples because of taste. I don't know if it's pesticides or the wax on so many regular apples that tastes nasty. I hate going into a store and seeing a whole aisle of shiny apples.....to me it's unappetizing. I first go to the "dim dusty" looking apples then check for organic.
Most other things I don't notice a difference or its something that gets peeled anyway....the waxing of cucumbers drives me nuts too. I love when we have local cucs come into season
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Again, organic has nothing to do with animal treatment ...
It depends on the standard one is using to define Organic.
What's clear in this thread is that some have a very narrow definition.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Again, organic has nothing to do with animal treatment ...
It depends on the standard one is using to define Organic.
I'm talking about the actual label approved by the gov't. I expect it's different in different countries.
Organic refers to the use (well, non use) of specific pesticides, not local vs. non local or humane vs. non humane.
Again, in the US we have specific labels that relate to animal treatment too, but most of them are bogus (cage free can mean very little in reality).
I care about supporting local farms and humane treatment, but I don't lie to myself that buying from some huge organic producer helps with either goal. I seek out local farms that I know something about or use other such methods. Many of these are ALSO organic, but some don't bother getting the certification or perhaps don't qualify for various reasons.
(When I buy veggies/produce that are inherently non local, like bananas, or off season, I don't see a reason to prefer organic, and I don't think any reasons have been given for doing so.)
IMO, the best reason given for supporting organic/worrying about specific organics is the bee issue, but I don't personally know enough about that to have a strong opinion.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: ».... the actual label approved by the gov't...
Your government, perhaps...0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: ».... the actual label approved by the gov't...
Your government, perhaps...
Which was exactly the next thing she said....lemurcat12 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Again, organic has nothing to do with animal treatment ...
It depends on the standard one is using to define Organic.
I'm talking about the actual label approved by the gov't. I expect it's different in different countries.
Organic refers to the use (well, non use) of specific pesticides, not local vs. non local or humane vs. non humane.
Again, in the US we have specific labels that relate to animal treatment too, but most of them are bogus (cage free can mean very little in reality).
I care about supporting local farms and humane treatment, but I don't lie to myself that buying from some huge organic producer helps with either goal. I seek out local farms that I know something about or use other such methods. Many of these are ALSO organic, but some don't bother getting the certification or perhaps don't qualify for various reasons.
(When I buy veggies/produce that are inherently non local, like bananas, or off season, I don't see a reason to prefer organic, and I don't think any reasons have been given for doing so.)
IMO, the best reason given for supporting organic/worrying about specific organics is the bee issue, but I don't personally know enough about that to have a strong opinion.
0 -
HeySwoleSister wrote: »Which was exactly the next thing she said....
the and my, different words, very different meanings. And given that the response was to my previous point the my would have been the appropriate usage.
Much of this thread has drawn out that organic means very different things to different people. Some countries have quite sophisticated certification schemes, others don't.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »HeySwoleSister wrote: »Which was exactly the next thing she said....
the and my, different words, very different meanings.
Context is important. Not sure what you think you gain by ignoring it. At this point it seems as if you are arguing just to argue.
You were critical upthread of the "narrow" definitions people were using for organic, as if they were somehow wrong. (My comment before that about organic NOT being about animal welfare was made in response to a comment to the contrary from someone IN THE US.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »HeySwoleSister wrote: »Which was exactly the next thing she said....
the and my, different words, very different meanings.
Context is important. Not sure what you think you gain by ignoring it. At this point it seems as if you are arguing just to argue.
You were critical upthread of the "narrow" definitions people were using for organic, as if they were somehow wrong. (My comment before that about organic NOT being about animal welfare was made in response to a comment to the contrary from someone IN THE US.)
Context is indeed important, as are assumptions.
I'm not suggesting that narrow definitions are wrong. What I've said a number of times is that if one is discussing a point, organic produce, that doesn't have a fixed definition then be clear about how one is defining it.
I wouldn't disagree that this whole thing is amusing to me though.
0 -
Organic is better all the way around. Sometimes can't afford it, but I get it when I can.
If we don't buy it, the stores will quit stocking it.
Buy organic when you can!0 -
The whole organic food thing is just a ploy to get you to spend more money. There was a article on this somewhere even though they say that organic fruits and vegetables are not treated with pesticide, they in fact are, but they are treated with DDT or something like that. So all you are doing is swapping one form of pesticide for another.
And what is the difference between a boneless NY Strip from publix, and a boneless NY Strip from say a grass fed cow???
I would worry more about hitting your macro/micro/calorie goals....
They taste different.. lol
No, seriously, Publix carries grassfed hamburger from a farm in Georgia. It's $7.99 a lb here and packaged in a little green package. That stuff is AMAZING. If you've never tried it, try it for the taste difference. I usually season hamburger because it tastes a bit bland, but this stuff needs nothing. I might add salt when it's done cooking, but that's it.
Additionally, there may be a health benefit. Interestingly, grassfed beef tends to contain MORE trans fats than feedlot beef. At first, that sounds like a bad thing, though, in this case it's in the form of CLA. It's still in the earlier stages of study, but it looks like CLA has some health benefits.
Free range eggs taste a lot better too, especially fresh and local. I'm lucky enough to have a local flea market source.
I don't know that there is a health benefit per se. For me there is a mental health benefit.. lol I'm not an animal rights person, animals eat animals and we're animals..SO... Anyhow, I still am an animal welfare person and feedlots and large chicken operations suck.. I can't afford to completely not support them, but, I do what I can.
Additionally, going organic usually requires better practices. You have to have less crowding and stress to get away without antibiotics. You have to have improved field biodiversity to cut back on pesticide. I doubt it's always better, but, it's probably an improvement.
There is a valid argument that it takes more land. If someone has a yard, they should probably compost and grow some of their own food. We could probably take substantial strain off of our farms by using more of our own yards for food than ornamentals.
Obviously, easier said than done if your working and have kids and a whole bunch of other commitments taking your time up.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »I'm not suggesting that narrow definitions are wrong. What I've said a number of times is that if one is discussing a point, organic produce, that doesn't have a fixed definition then be clear about how one is defining it.
Actually, earlier in the discussion you said that you didn't think "organic" had a defined (regulated) meaning in the US. I explained that it did (you ignored this).
In any case, if we are arguing about anything substantive, I'm not sure what. I've been extremely clear throughout this discussion about what matters to me (local and certain humane practices) and why (taste, supporting the community and smaller farmers, animal welfare, not actually health, as I don't think there's a difference except marginally re pastured animals) and that in the US these goals are not, IMO, best served by simply buying produce labeled "organic" in grocery stores, which typically are from large non-local producers (although there are exceptions--some local farms get carried in some of the local groceries and WF and some other groceries may provide additional information about some of their products).
Questioning the merits of the "organic" label as used in the US or the cost differential that often applies to organic vs. conventional carrots sold side by side and possibly coming from the same distance away does not mean--as some would have it--that you don't care about where your food is from, let alone about animal welfare.
0 -
To those who keep claiming organic tastes better.
www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8Zqe4ZV9LDs&ei=fNNPVf6_MoWdyASGzYDABQ&usg=AFQjCNFKkL96k8L8p-9gGNxLcpfE698YWQ&sig2=7n9e27VSeX34g4Pn_pCV7g&bvm=bv.92885102,d.aWw
0 -
DeannaGalindo wrote: »Organic is better all the way around. Sometimes can't afford it, but I get it when I can.
If we don't buy it, the stores will quit stocking it.
Buy organic when you can!
More tillage and more greenhouse gasses for lower yield is better? Who knew?
0 -
for example, if you could only buy 1 fruit organic, it would be better to buy an organic apple than an organic orange, because you might eat the apple peel, but you would peel the orange then eat it.
http://www.eatingwell.com/food_news_origins/organic_natural/dirty_dozen_plus_14_foods_you_should_buy_organic
10 organic foods not worth buying
http://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/non-organic-food0 -
Nice to see, good for you. My go to for rabbit is a neighbor and rabbit has been on my menu for quite a few years. Just started germinating micro greens for the first time in an attempt to get a consistent supply at a reasonable price, they are outrageously expensive. Planted magenta spreen, Cressida cres, opal basil, red garnet amaranth and a red purslane. I also use local lamb, poultry and veg that I don't grow myself. Asparagus is just popping up and over the weekend grabbed a cache of fiddleheads and wild garlic.LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
I suspect your a creature of a city, just a guess.LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »He's also among the first to admit that feeding an entire nation entirely on organic produce and organically-raised animals would be impossible.
I saw something the other day indicating something like 20% of waste, accounting for that would make a significant difference.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. However, one thing he was referencing was the ease with which an organic crop can be wiped out, in comparison with a conventionally raised crop. Yes, organic farmers can and do use some pesticides, but they are often less effective than those used by conventional farmers. Heirloom seeds are also more expensive and tend to be less hardy than seeds developed to grow in certain areas or to have certain resistances. He's developed a tomato that grows insanely well in his tiny micro-environment, but it's not doing nearly as well at my home, where the soil is different, even though we barely live 10 miles from each other.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: we expect industries to grow, change, and improve over time. Every industry except farming. If a lawyer or a steel mill or an army or a teacher used 18th or 19th century practices, then we'd say that person or group was behind the times and lacking credibility. Farming and ranching practices have improved with the advent of science and learning--why in the world do we expect these industries to remain rooted in times that fed fewer people and that had less safe practices when so much new and better technology makes our food safer and more abundant?
Because keeping chickens in an area so small they can't even stand up, much less turn around is not humane. I know where talking about vegetables, but you just expanded the discussion into farming. Profit is the wrong motivation in this industry for many reasons. We want to know what is in our food and how it is being processed. Small local farm are trying to do the right thing in that area, but it costs more and is difficult to compete with the McFarms that don't care about food quality or proper treatment of animals, but rather only seek to increase profit at all costs to their customers (us), the environment, other living creatures, and damn the rest.
Other people mentioned beef before me, so no, I expanded nothing. Your argument is an emotional one, not a factual one. Chickens don't utilize a lot of space and prefer to crowd together. Yes, they should be able to stand up, but you're exaggerating the issue. It is a fact that over 90% of all farms are still family-owned, but they have contracts with larger organizations to produce food for them. As to profit, what is wrong with profit? Farmers and ranchers still need to feed their own families and pay their bills. When you can argue from facts instead of emotions, maybe you'll realize that the egg industry is all-but dead in California because of the new "humane" rules and that emotions will eventually destroy the food sources we rely on. Please, though, plant your own Victory garden and feel free to raise your own cows, goat, chickens, or whatever to feed your own family instead of making up restrictions that will raise prices and reduce food availability for everyone else.Until we grew our own, I didn't like tomatoes; when I tasted the ones straight out of our garden, I was pleasantly surprised. Home-grown is definitely best. So I do believe in supporting legitimate local farmers. My sister and brother, who are both acquainted with hunting, confirm that an animal killed quickly will have fewer stress-related chemicals racing through its system and this also affects taste. Also, I believe that an animal raised fairly naturally on open ground, eating what it should eat, is healthier than one raised in tiny, unsanitary spaces and artificially stuffed with chemicals and medication. An animal raised in a healthy condition would, I think be healthier for the consumer.
Since true organic farming is, indeed, impossible on a large-scale (almost by definition), we all need to develop a more reliable way to ensure that the techniques used in large-scale consumer farming is not ruining the environment while feeding nations-at-large; in the long-run, harmful techniques will backfire.
Have you been to a modern farm or are you relying on animal rights/anti-farming propaganda for your assumptions on the spaces and drugs? (By the way, you're stuffed with chemicals, too. Especially if you just ate food.)
Bad guess. But ad hominem attempts at redirection provide bad support for an argument. I do have my own garden and do have my own dairy goats and am making a second attempt at meat rabbits. I process deer for hunters during the fall and winter months and both eat venison myself and feed it, raw, to my dogs.
How close are you to YOUR food?
0 -
For me, I do believe that 'organic' meat is better, but by 'organic' I really just mean without antibiotics or hormones. And I don't even have data to back up my preference, so there ya have it But for sure some nice grass-fed farm-raised beef tastes a zillion times better than anything from a factory. 0
-
+1For me, I do believe that 'organic' meat is better, but by 'organic' I really just mean without antibiotics or hormones. And I don't even have data to back up my preference, so there ya have it But for sure some nice grass-fed farm-raised beef tastes a zillion times better than anything from a factory.
I don't need a study to tell me that I prefer the taste of something. This thread is all kinds of weird.
0 -
suzycreamcheese wrote: »organic is more sustainable. The pesticides used on crops is having a massive effect on the insect population even outside farming areas. Bumblebee numbers have crashed. This is having a massive effect on other wild flowers that are unable to be pollinated, and its having a huge effect on the bird population who eat these insects, and also means that slug and snail populations and are starting to get out of control because there arent enough birds to keep them down. The ramifications go on and on.
I dont know whether organic tastes better. I think sometimes it does, and sometimes I cant taste much difference. I believe the welfare standards for organically produced meat and dairy animals are a bit higher and more stringent, certainly in the UK anyway, and thats not an unimportant issue, even if it isnt perfect.
I cant always afford to buy organic, but I think there is no doubt that it is preferable on many many levels to support organic farming where, and if you can.
This is pretty much how I feel too.0 -
+1For me, I do believe that 'organic' meat is better, but by 'organic' I really just mean without antibiotics or hormones. And I don't even have data to back up my preference, so there ya have it But for sure some nice grass-fed farm-raised beef tastes a zillion times better than anything from a factory.
I don't need a study to tell me that I prefer the taste of something. This thread is all kinds of weird.
I kinda quit reading when the thread told me that the reason backyard tomatoes taste better than store bought tomatoes is because of 'organic'. It's hard to discuss something that people don't have a standard definition for.
0 -
-
This content has been removed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zqe4ZV9LDs
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions