Organic...
Replies
-
I don't assume perfect enforcement in my argument. That's actually worse for you - currently there are probably organic beef that end up eating antibiotics. I do assume that if you let people use antibiotics for prescribed purposes, people will be more prompt in having their animals screened and treated by a vet instead of contemplating the possibility of losing the organic premium.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
100% eristic response rate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So as long as the farmer could justify a reasonable (and highly subjective) belief that the animal could recover, how would he have violated the law?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
What in particular makes it worth reading?ScreeField wrote: »here's the actual law about Organic livestock care standards--worth reading just in case you've never read it before:
Well, that last item would make the farmer I thought was stupid for withholding antibiotics to the point of death in violation of the law.
That was not scenario described.
The scenario is the person has a sick cow, he's plowed a lot of expensive organic feed into it, and now it gets sick. Is the law really going to prevent him from contemplating leaving it untreated?
As I've said before, I would think common business sense would. But if we are going to assume laws are ignored, then why talk of changing laws?0 -
I don't assume perfect enforcement in my argument. That's actually worse for you - currently there are probably organic beef that end up eating antibiotics. I do assume that if you let people use antibiotics for prescribed purposes, people will be more prompt in having their animals screened and treated by a vet instead of contemplating the possibility of losing the organic premium.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
100% eristic response rate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So as long as the farmer could justify a reasonable (and highly subjective) belief that the animal could recover, how would he have violated the law?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
What in particular makes it worth reading?ScreeField wrote: »here's the actual law about Organic livestock care standards--worth reading just in case you've never read it before:
Well, that last item would make the farmer I thought was stupid for withholding antibiotics to the point of death in violation of the law.
That was not scenario described.
The scenario is the person has a sick cow, he's plowed a lot of expensive organic feed into it, and now it gets sick. Is the law really going to prevent him from contemplating leaving it untreated?
As I've said before, I would think common business sense would. But if we are going to assume laws are ignored, then why talk of changing laws?
Sounds logical. Still has little to do with the OP's question, given current laws.0 -
I don't have a medical condition, and I don't feel differently when I eat conventionally grown produce and meat vs. organic (and I do eat some of both, mainly organic berries that end up on sale, but some beef as well).
I do feel better when I eat a diet that contains many servings of raw and cooked vegetables and fruit daily. [/quote]
I long for the days when I could eat whatever, but those days are long gone and never to be again. I spend a vast amount of my time reading labels. For example, say I want to buy a pasta sauce instead of making it; I have to label read to make sure there are only organic ingredients, no chemicals, preservatives, msgs, gums, stablizers....etc. It bites big time but necessary since I have an autoimmune disease. I can tell within minutes if not seconds when a food has something in it that my body rejects as bad.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »How not, @Need2Exerc1se ? The farmer was following direction from his veterinarian throughout. He tried natural remedies first and foremost. Overnight and within hours, he had more fatalities. The natural approach (hygiene, isolation, and changing bedding) finally worked but not fast enough to save a half-dozen calves.
So you were not puttting that forth as an example of a farmer specifically witholding antibiotics to preserve organic status. I re-read it and it still sounds like that to me. What was your point, if not that?
HE DID withhold antibiotics. He followed the natural approach first, which resulted in deaths. It wasn't abusive, it wasn't stupid. The farmer was motivated by preserving his organic/antibiotic-free status.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »How not, @Need2Exerc1se ? The farmer was following direction from his veterinarian throughout. He tried natural remedies first and foremost. Overnight and within hours, he had more fatalities. The natural approach (hygiene, isolation, and changing bedding) finally worked but not fast enough to save a half-dozen calves.
So you were not puttting that forth as an example of a farmer specifically witholding antibiotics to preserve organic status. I re-read it and it still sounds like that to me. What was your point, if not that?
HE DID withhold antibiotics. He followed the natural approach first, which resulted in deaths. It wasn't abusive, it wasn't stupid. The farmer was motivated by preserving his organic/antibiotic-free status.
Which is exactly what the law says not to do according to the post on page 9.0 -
Eating "organic" is just as good as eating regular vegetables and fruits. Both contain dangerous pesticides, but the regular market is more controlled and the pesticides are more scientifically evolved not to be dangerous. Not to mention that "organic" food tend to cost 3x as much.
There are good and bad examples on both sides. Wash them troughly and if they tase chemicals dont eat them.
BTW organic is such a stupid term, as if the regular greens where non-organic.
0 -
Eating "organic" is just as good as eating regular vegetables and fruits. Both contain dangerous pesticides, but the regular market is more controlled and the pesticides are more scientifically evolved not to be dangerous. Not to mention that "organic" food tend to cost 3x as much.
There are good and bad examples on both sides. Wash them troughly and if they tase chemicals dont eat them.
BTW organic is such a stupid term, as if the regular greens where non-organic.
I don't understand most of this. What dangerous chemicals do organic or non-organic produce contain? What makes the non-organic market more controlled? I would think the opposite.
Also, washing any produce is good, but since pesticides are applied thorughout the growth cycle then washed in to the soil when it rains to be distributed thoughout the plant by the root system, it doesn't remove all rediue.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Eating "organic" is just as good as eating regular vegetables and fruits. Both contain dangerous pesticides, but the regular market is more controlled and the pesticides are more scientifically evolved not to be dangerous. Not to mention that "organic" food tend to cost 3x as much.
There are good and bad examples on both sides. Wash them troughly and if they tase chemicals dont eat them.
BTW organic is such a stupid term, as if the regular greens where non-organic.
I don't understand most of this. What dangerous chemicals do organic or non-organic produce contain? What makes the non-organic market more controlled? I would think the opposite.
Also, washing any produce is good, but since pesticides are applied thorughout the growth cycle then washed in to the soil when it rains to be distributed thoughout the plant by the root system, it doesn't remove all rediue.
Copper sulfate is an acceptable pesticide used in organics. Until recently, rotenone was an acceptable organic pesticide, as was nicotine. Both breakdown less and can kill something at lesser does than a number of synthetic pesticides, like glyphosate.0 -
The difference is that organic's rules say that you can use any natural substance. There are no requirements that a substance be tested - it is assumed that it is safe.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Eating "organic" is just as good as eating regular vegetables and fruits. Both contain dangerous pesticides, but the regular market is more controlled and the pesticides are more scientifically evolved not to be dangerous. Not to mention that "organic" food tend to cost 3x as much.
There are good and bad examples on both sides. Wash them troughly and if they tase chemicals dont eat them.
BTW organic is such a stupid term, as if the regular greens where non-organic.
I don't understand most of this. What dangerous chemicals do organic or non-organic produce contain? What makes the non-organic market more controlled? I would think the opposite.
Also, washing any produce is good, but since pesticides are applied thorughout the growth cycle then washed in to the soil when it rains to be distributed thoughout the plant by the root system, it doesn't remove all rediue.
Any synthetic chemical that is going to be sprayed on food has to go through testing to show it is safe in mammals, and what is the lowest amount of it that can cause any kind of side effect what-so-ever. Then the USDA sets standards about how often it can be used to guarantee it stays well below that threshold even with multiple applications and assuming people eat huge numbers of servings - think 20 apples in a day.0 -
let me link the organic pesticide/chemical list...again...
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_16010 -
let me link the organic pesticide/chemical list...again...
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_1601
That is interesting, and would seem to disprove the statement above that says there is no requirements for natural substances in organic farming. I did not know they already allowed synthetics.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »let me link the organic pesticide/chemical list...again...
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_1601
That is interesting, and would seem to disprove the statement above that says there is no requirements for natural substances in organic farming. I did not know they already allowed synthetics.
it is indeed unfortunate
although logical because obviously they need to use SOMETHING to get rid of insects, bacteria, and such, as I'm sure you know
also, as @senecarr and I pointed out previously, the volume of organic pesticides and herbicides often has to be higher than synthetics because of the difference in efficacy between the two (among other factors, I'm sure)
not to mention organic practices (as I understand it) require fallow seasons because they are more harmful to the soil than modern agricultural ones
really your best bet if you actually want to limit your intake of pesticides/herbicides, man-made or otherwise, would be to grow your own produce or get locally-sourced stuff from small growers you know and trust0 -
This content has been removed.
-
...really your best bet if you actually want to limit your intake of pesticides/herbicides, man-made or otherwise, would be to grow your own produce or get locally-sourced stuff from small growers you know and trust
So much this. It's sort of sad, because I think many of those who originally supported the idea of organic crops were responding to over-use of under-tested pesticides/herbicides. But the whole 'organics' thing has shifted over time to big, big business, accompanied by a morass of labeling regulations that allow producers to play some pretty interesting games with consumers.
Currently, I am left unimpressed and unconvinced by the "organic" label and would recommend the advice quoted above. Personally, I'm not willing to pay the price difference for "organic" foods that don't appear to be any more or less safe or nutritious than non-organics.
exactly
organic is a multi-billion dollar industry, just as "big ag" is0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Eating "organic" is just as good as eating regular vegetables and fruits. Both contain dangerous pesticides, but the regular market is more controlled and the pesticides are more scientifically evolved not to be dangerous. Not to mention that "organic" food tend to cost 3x as much.
There are good and bad examples on both sides. Wash them troughly and if they tase chemicals dont eat them.
BTW organic is such a stupid term, as if the regular greens where non-organic.
I don't understand most of this. What dangerous chemicals do organic or non-organic produce contain? What makes the non-organic market more controlled? I would think the opposite.
Also, washing any produce is good, but since pesticides are applied thorughout the growth cycle then washed in to the soil when it rains to be distributed thoughout the plant by the root system, it doesn't remove all rediue.
Copper sulfate is an acceptable pesticide used in organics. Until recently, rotenone was an acceptable organic pesticide, as was nicotine. Both breakdown less and can kill something at lesser does than a number of synthetic pesticides, like glyphosate.
Nicotine is so insanely dangerous it's been banned for commercial sale for a LONG time. It's mostly small-scale idiots who were using that, brewing their own. It's something like 1000x-10000x more toxic than the most common conventional pesticides.
Pesticides and herbicides WERE under-tested...50 years ago. It's absolutely true. Now? Not so much.
Example:
People with particular channelopathies (genetic muscle disorders--don't worry, you'd have serious symptoms if you have one) are affected by particular pesticides (many pesticides act one ion channels, so this obviously makes sense--someone with messed up ion channels is likely going to be either far more or far less sensitive than the average person). You know what it causes? Muscle cramping. Whole body, painful muscle cramping for a few hours to a couple of days after exposure (like walking through a yard that's been sprayed an hour before). Because that's what happens when those ion channels are flooded. (It's annoying even with those individuals, not debilitating).
People who make vague claims about sensitivities--headaches, upset stomach, WHATEVER--are hypochondriacs. That's not how the toxin works even on the things it's supposed to kill.
(I've got a likely channelopathy, but it's a different channel than most pesticides act on, so it doesn't affect me more than anyone else.)
If you're worried about hormone disruptors, the perfumes in your personal care, makeup, and household products are FAR likelier to be a problem. Yes most of those "all organic" women slather on their make up every morning with abandon and even will spray air fresheners in their houses.0 -
Use of tobacco / nicotine as was still listed as ACCEPTABLE on the organic list until at least 2008 to the best of my knowledge. I am aware that it and rotanone were removed. I made no claim they were in use, just what was allowed under the label.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Eating "organic" is just as good as eating regular vegetables and fruits. Both contain dangerous pesticides, but the regular market is more controlled and the pesticides are more scientifically evolved not to be dangerous. Not to mention that "organic" food tend to cost 3x as much.
There are good and bad examples on both sides. Wash them troughly and if they tase chemicals dont eat them.
BTW organic is such a stupid term, as if the regular greens where non-organic.
I don't understand most of this. What dangerous chemicals do organic or non-organic produce contain? What makes the non-organic market more controlled? I would think the opposite.
Also, washing any produce is good, but since pesticides are applied thorughout the growth cycle then washed in to the soil when it rains to be distributed thoughout the plant by the root system, it doesn't remove all rediue.
Copper sulfate is an acceptable pesticide used in organics. Until recently, rotenone was an acceptable organic pesticide, as was nicotine. Both breakdown less and can kill something at lesser does than a number of synthetic pesticides, like glyphosate.
Nicotine is so insanely dangerous it's been banned for commercial sale for a LONG time. It's mostly small-scale idiots who were using that, brewing their own. It's something like 1000x-10000x more toxic than the most common conventional pesticides.
Pesticides and herbicides WERE under-tested...50 years ago. It's absolutely true. Now? Not so much.
Example:
People with particular channelopathies (genetic muscle disorders--don't worry, you'd have serious symptoms if you have one) are affected by particular pesticides (many pesticides act one ion channels, so this obviously makes sense--someone with messed up ion channels is likely going to be either far more or far less sensitive than the average person). You know what it causes? Muscle cramping. Whole body, painful muscle cramping for a few hours to a couple of days after exposure (like walking through a yard that's been sprayed an hour before). Because that's what happens when those ion channels are flooded. (It's annoying even with those individuals, not debilitating).
People who make vague claims about sensitivities--headaches, upset stomach, WHATEVER--are hypochondriacs. That's not how the toxin works even on the things it's supposed to kill.
(I've got a likely channelopathy, but it's a different channel than most pesticides act on, so it doesn't affect me more than anyone else.)
If you're worried about hormone disruptors, the perfumes in your personal care, makeup, and household products are FAR likelier to be a problem. Yes most of those "all organic" women slather on their make up every morning with abandon and even will spray air fresheners in their houses.
0 -
I'm not a fan of the amount of pesticides and stuff they use, but I prefer normally grown food to organic. It's not sustainable. If a crop gets a fungus at an organic type farm? There goes that crop for the year, and maybe forever. It's not like crops are being sprayed down by people in hazmat suits like one of the first posters was saying (and seriously, where did he get that idea?). I taste no difference in organic / non organic food, and I don't think it's necessarily healthier.0
-
withoutasaddle wrote: »I'm not a fan of the amount of pesticides and stuff they use, but I prefer normally grown food to organic. It's not sustainable. If a crop gets a fungus at an organic type farm? There goes that crop for the year, and maybe forever. It's not like crops are being sprayed down by people in hazmat suits like one of the first posters was saying (and seriously, where did he get that idea?). I taste no difference in organic / non organic food, and I don't think it's necessarily healthier.
somehow a 19 year old with 38 posts comes in to a 10 page thread and says the most reasonable *kitten* in the entire thread in like 3 sentences
you win the internet0 -
Use of tobacco / nicotine as was still listed as ACCEPTABLE on the organic list until at least 2008 to the best of my knowledge. I am aware that it and rotanone were removed. I made no claim they were in use, just what was allowed under the label.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Eating "organic" is just as good as eating regular vegetables and fruits. Both contain dangerous pesticides, but the regular market is more controlled and the pesticides are more scientifically evolved not to be dangerous. Not to mention that "organic" food tend to cost 3x as much.
There are good and bad examples on both sides. Wash them troughly and if they tase chemicals dont eat them.
BTW organic is such a stupid term, as if the regular greens where non-organic.
I don't understand most of this. What dangerous chemicals do organic or non-organic produce contain? What makes the non-organic market more controlled? I would think the opposite.
Also, washing any produce is good, but since pesticides are applied thorughout the growth cycle then washed in to the soil when it rains to be distributed thoughout the plant by the root system, it doesn't remove all rediue.
Copper sulfate is an acceptable pesticide used in organics. Until recently, rotenone was an acceptable organic pesticide, as was nicotine. Both breakdown less and can kill something at lesser does than a number of synthetic pesticides, like glyphosate.
Nicotine is so insanely dangerous it's been banned for commercial sale for a LONG time. It's mostly small-scale idiots who were using that, brewing their own. It's something like 1000x-10000x more toxic than the most common conventional pesticides.
Pesticides and herbicides WERE under-tested...50 years ago. It's absolutely true. Now? Not so much.
Example:
People with particular channelopathies (genetic muscle disorders--don't worry, you'd have serious symptoms if you have one) are affected by particular pesticides (many pesticides act one ion channels, so this obviously makes sense--someone with messed up ion channels is likely going to be either far more or far less sensitive than the average person). You know what it causes? Muscle cramping. Whole body, painful muscle cramping for a few hours to a couple of days after exposure (like walking through a yard that's been sprayed an hour before). Because that's what happens when those ion channels are flooded. (It's annoying even with those individuals, not debilitating).
People who make vague claims about sensitivities--headaches, upset stomach, WHATEVER--are hypochondriacs. That's not how the toxin works even on the things it's supposed to kill.
(I've got a likely channelopathy, but it's a different channel than most pesticides act on, so it doesn't affect me more than anyone else.)
If you're worried about hormone disruptors, the perfumes in your personal care, makeup, and household products are FAR likelier to be a problem. Yes most of those "all organic" women slather on their make up every morning with abandon and even will spray air fresheners in their houses.
That is......terrifying. OMG. It would be SO EASY to kill someone. *shudders*
I don't think it was allowed to be sold commercially at that point.0 -
withoutasaddle wrote: »I'm not a fan of the amount of pesticides and stuff they use, but I prefer normally grown food to organic. It's not sustainable. If a crop gets a fungus at an organic type farm? There goes that crop for the year, and maybe forever. It's not like crops are being sprayed down by people in hazmat suits like one of the first posters was saying (and seriously, where did he get that idea?). I taste no difference in organic / non organic food, and I don't think it's necessarily healthier.
somehow a 19 year old with 38 posts comes in to a 10 page thread and says the most reasonable *kitten* in the entire thread in like 3 sentences
you win the internet
Except he thinks organic farms don't use pesticides...which isn't true.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »withoutasaddle wrote: »I'm not a fan of the amount of pesticides and stuff they use, but I prefer normally grown food to organic. It's not sustainable. If a crop gets a fungus at an organic type farm? There goes that crop for the year, and maybe forever. It's not like crops are being sprayed down by people in hazmat suits like one of the first posters was saying (and seriously, where did he get that idea?). I taste no difference in organic / non organic food, and I don't think it's necessarily healthier.
somehow a 19 year old with 38 posts comes in to a 10 page thread and says the most reasonable *kitten* in the entire thread in like 3 sentences
you win the internet
Except he thinks organic farms don't use pesticides...which isn't true.
hmm I can see how you'd infer that from her post but she doesn't outright state it
either way it's a good summary of the idea that organic sucks
0 -
They did claim organic can't fight fungus, but copper sulfate is a fungicide permitted in organic.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »withoutasaddle wrote: »I'm not a fan of the amount of pesticides and stuff they use, but I prefer normally grown food to organic. It's not sustainable. If a crop gets a fungus at an organic type farm? There goes that crop for the year, and maybe forever. It's not like crops are being sprayed down by people in hazmat suits like one of the first posters was saying (and seriously, where did he get that idea?). I taste no difference in organic / non organic food, and I don't think it's necessarily healthier.
somehow a 19 year old with 38 posts comes in to a 10 page thread and says the most reasonable *kitten* in the entire thread in like 3 sentences
you win the internet
Except he thinks organic farms don't use pesticides...which isn't true.
hmm I can see how you'd infer that from her post but she doesn't outright state it
either way it's a good summary of the idea that organic sucks
0 -
punkrockgoth wrote: »I strongly feel that the organic fair trade non GMO buy local movement is fueled by ignorance, bulls*&t propoganda and first world problems. It's a social construct meant to tell other people that you think you're better than them.
I agree wholeheartedly. "Organic" is a feel-good buzzword that doesn't have a standard meaning except "I think it's better".
And to those people here saying they think organic food tastes better?
Think again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym4s2MeZ9E4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qa6QXBxxWw
Placebo Effect lulz.-1 -
They did claim organic can't fight fungus, but copper sulfate is a fungicide permitted in organic.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »withoutasaddle wrote: »I'm not a fan of the amount of pesticides and stuff they use, but I prefer normally grown food to organic. It's not sustainable. If a crop gets a fungus at an organic type farm? There goes that crop for the year, and maybe forever. It's not like crops are being sprayed down by people in hazmat suits like one of the first posters was saying (and seriously, where did he get that idea?). I taste no difference in organic / non organic food, and I don't think it's necessarily healthier.
somehow a 19 year old with 38 posts comes in to a 10 page thread and says the most reasonable *kitten* in the entire thread in like 3 sentences
you win the internet
Except he thinks organic farms don't use pesticides...which isn't true.
hmm I can see how you'd infer that from her post but she doesn't outright state it
either way it's a good summary of the idea that organic sucks
fair point. used in copious quantities, I'm guessing0 -
No wait, I want to change my answer to be more MFP appropriate. "Organics are awful. You should eat as much Doritos, Little Debbie Snack Cakes and Pepsi as will possibly fit in your daily allowances. CICO dudes."0
-
No wait, I want to change my answer to be more MFP appropriate. "Organics are awful. You should eat as much Doritos, Little Debbie Snack Cakes and Pepsi as will possibly fit in your daily allowances. CICO dudes."
@3aann3 that's a gross oversimplification of IIFYM (often used interchangeably with CICO) here...you are making a pure straw man argument.
IIFYM focuses first on meeting your calorie goal, then your macro goals, then your micro goals, in whatever combination of foods you wish to use to reach those goals.
CICO is simply the concept that your weight loss or gain is 100% dependent on the number of calories you consume versus the number of calories you burn, regardless of the actual source of those calories (this excludes certain medical conditions, of course).
the arguments in this thread both for and against organic produce (if you even bothered to go through and read them) are numerous, and many citations to scientific and governmental studies and documentation were provided. in particular, @Need2Exerc1se and @senecarr had quite a lengthy discussion on a number of the relevant topics.
your post which I quoted insults the intelligence and diligence of every member of this forum who has obviously put far more time and effort into learning about both sides of the various issues of health and nutrition than you have. unlike you, many of us try to be objective and open-minded enough to listen to rational arguments presented by both sides.0 -
No wait, I want to change my answer to be more MFP appropriate. "Organics are awful. You should eat as much Doritos, Little Debbie Snack Cakes and Pepsi as will possibly fit in your daily allowances. CICO dudes."
Don't wear yourself out attacking that straw man.
The pro-organic side need lots of help combatting the evidence that organic is not significantly better for you than non-organic food.
0 -
So far, all the evidence the organic team have got is this:
0 -
No wait, I want to change my answer to be more MFP appropriate. "Organics are awful. You should eat as much Doritos, Little Debbie Snack Cakes and Pepsi as will possibly fit in your daily allowances. CICO dudes."
@3aann3 that's a gross oversimplification of IIFYM (often used interchangeably with CICO) here...you are making a pure straw man argument.
IIFYM focuses first on meeting your calorie goal, then your macro goals, then your micro goals, in whatever combination of foods you wish to use to reach those goals.
CICO is simply the concept that your weight loss or gain is 100% dependent on the number of calories you consume versus the number of calories you burn, regardless of the actual source of those calories (this excludes certain medical conditions, of course).
the arguments in this thread both for and against organic produce (if you even bothered to go through and read them) are numerous, and many citations to scientific and governmental studies and documentation were provided. in particular, @Need2Exerc1se and @senecarr had quite a lengthy discussion on a number of the relevant topics.
your post which I quoted insults the intelligence and diligence of every member of this forum who has obviously put far more time and effort into learning about both sides of the various issues of health and nutrition than you have. unlike you, many of us try to be objective and open-minded enough to listen to rational arguments presented by both sides.
I hardly think everyone posting on the site has "put [much] time and effort learning about both sides of the various issues of health and nutrition". That's a joke! Some people who post responses know next to nothing about nutrition, many come in with their own personal experiences to share and many already have their mind 100% made up on their position and spend all their time and energy to try and support it.
And you have to first consider where the funding is coming from for the studies you are citing. Who is your source? I most often purchase my produce from farmers markets in my community and though I may pay more, I know what is going into my body and what isn't. That's important to me. If you want "governmental and scientific studies and documentation" making up your mind for you, then that's your prerogative.
Show me the money!0
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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions