Organic...
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
and that recent peer reviewed paper I linked earlier shows how low the exposure is to pesticides resides even in the "dirty dozen".
Anyone eating corn or peanuts eats a natural substance that is probably orders of magnitude more significant than pesticides: aflatoxin B1.
So? We don't get to pick and choose what substances are found naturally in food. We can, to some extent, choose what man added to our food.
The difference is, you're worried about a paper cut while a bear is charging you. You'll see health effects from B1 in your food faster than you will most almost any synthetic pesticide, so the synthetic pesticide makes no sense to worry about, you already have a lower threshold to avoid reaching if you're avoiding things for your health.
Makes no sense to worry about. LOL Yeah, well, I suppose worry is often senseless. But the reason many people prefer to avoid synthetics is to reduce worry. They trust God, Mother Nature, the Earth, <whatever> more than man and government policing agencies. Trust = less worry.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
and that recent peer reviewed paper I linked earlier shows how low the exposure is to pesticides resides even in the "dirty dozen".
Anyone eating corn or peanuts eats a natural substance that is probably orders of magnitude more significant than pesticides: aflatoxin B1.
So? We don't get to pick and choose what substances are found naturally in food. We can, to some extent, choose what man added to our food.
The difference is, you're worried about a paper cut while a bear is charging you. You'll see health effects from B1 in your food faster than you will most almost any synthetic pesticide, so the synthetic pesticide makes no sense to worry about, you already have a lower threshold to avoid reaching if you're avoiding things for your health.
Makes no sense to worry about. LOL Yeah, well, I suppose worry is often senseless. But the reason many people prefer to avoid synthetics is to reduce worry. They trust God, Mother Nature, the Earth, <whatever> more than man and government policing agencies. Trust = less worry.
and again, mother earth gives us mycotoxins (which are natural)...which (again) are more significant than pesticides that MIGHT be found at 1/1000th of a NOAEL (no observed adverse effect levels).0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
and that recent peer reviewed paper I linked earlier shows how low the exposure is to pesticides resides even in the "dirty dozen".
Anyone eating corn or peanuts eats a natural substance that is probably orders of magnitude more significant than pesticides: aflatoxin B1.
So? We don't get to pick and choose what substances are found naturally in food. We can, to some extent, choose what man added to our food.
The difference is, you're worried about a paper cut while a bear is charging you. You'll see health effects from B1 in your food faster than you will most almost any synthetic pesticide, so the synthetic pesticide makes no sense to worry about, you already have a lower threshold to avoid reaching if you're avoiding things for your health.
Makes no sense to worry about. LOL Yeah, well, I suppose worry is often senseless. But the reason many people prefer to avoid synthetics is to reduce worry. They trust God, Mother Nature, the Earth, <whatever> more than man and government policing agencies. Trust = less worry.
In a universe that is 99.999999999999999999999999999999% vacuum of space that will kill a human in minutes, I have a hard time justifying there's any sense that nature gives two figs about being safe for us.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
and that recent peer reviewed paper I linked earlier shows how low the exposure is to pesticides resides even in the "dirty dozen".
Anyone eating corn or peanuts eats a natural substance that is probably orders of magnitude more significant than pesticides: aflatoxin B1.
So? We don't get to pick and choose what substances are found naturally in food. We can, to some extent, choose what man added to our food.
The difference is, you're worried about a paper cut while a bear is charging you. You'll see health effects from B1 in your food faster than you will most almost any synthetic pesticide, so the synthetic pesticide makes no sense to worry about, you already have a lower threshold to avoid reaching if you're avoiding things for your health.
Makes no sense to worry about. LOL Yeah, well, I suppose worry is often senseless. But the reason many people prefer to avoid synthetics is to reduce worry. They trust God, Mother Nature, the Earth, <whatever> more than man and government policing agencies. Trust = less worry.
and again, mother earth gives us mycotoxins (which are natural)...which (again) are more significant than pesticides that MIGHT be found at 1/1000th of a NOAEL (no observed adverse effect levels).
I'm not sure of your point. Are you suggesting we should try to avoid all foods with toxins? Wouldn't we starve?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
and that recent peer reviewed paper I linked earlier shows how low the exposure is to pesticides resides even in the "dirty dozen".
Anyone eating corn or peanuts eats a natural substance that is probably orders of magnitude more significant than pesticides: aflatoxin B1.
So? We don't get to pick and choose what substances are found naturally in food. We can, to some extent, choose what man added to our food.
The difference is, you're worried about a paper cut while a bear is charging you. You'll see health effects from B1 in your food faster than you will most almost any synthetic pesticide, so the synthetic pesticide makes no sense to worry about, you already have a lower threshold to avoid reaching if you're avoiding things for your health.
Makes no sense to worry about. LOL Yeah, well, I suppose worry is often senseless. But the reason many people prefer to avoid synthetics is to reduce worry. They trust God, Mother Nature, the Earth, <whatever> more than man and government policing agencies. Trust = less worry.
and again, mother earth gives us mycotoxins (which are natural)...which (again) are more significant than pesticides that MIGHT be found at 1/1000th of a NOAEL (no observed adverse effect levels).
I'm not sure of your point. Are you suggesting we should try to avoid all foods with toxins? Wouldn't we starve?
Well seeing as the rate limiting toxin he mentioned was B1 and that is also a required vitamin, I'm thinking his point is not recommending starving. He's saying, you need to understand the dose makes the poison.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
and that recent peer reviewed paper I linked earlier shows how low the exposure is to pesticides resides even in the "dirty dozen".
Anyone eating corn or peanuts eats a natural substance that is probably orders of magnitude more significant than pesticides: aflatoxin B1.
So? We don't get to pick and choose what substances are found naturally in food. We can, to some extent, choose what man added to our food.
The difference is, you're worried about a paper cut while a bear is charging you. You'll see health effects from B1 in your food faster than you will most almost any synthetic pesticide, so the synthetic pesticide makes no sense to worry about, you already have a lower threshold to avoid reaching if you're avoiding things for your health.
Makes no sense to worry about. LOL Yeah, well, I suppose worry is often senseless. But the reason many people prefer to avoid synthetics is to reduce worry. They trust God, Mother Nature, the Earth, <whatever> more than man and government policing agencies. Trust = less worry.
and again, mother earth gives us mycotoxins (which are natural)...which (again) are more significant than pesticides that MIGHT be found at 1/1000th of a NOAEL (no observed adverse effect levels).
I'm not sure of your point. Are you suggesting we should try to avoid all foods with toxins? Wouldn't we starve?
Well seeing as the rate limiting toxin he mentioned was B1 and that is also a required vitamin, I'm thinking his point is not recommending starving. He's saying, you need to understand the dose makes the poison.
We are talking apples and oranges. I'm talking source of the poison, you are talking amount/type. My understanding from sites where organics are routinely discussed is that people are more concerned about natural vs. man-made.
It's not even always about personal health. It's about the land, the air, the water. It's about f'n up the natural order of things. It's about untrusted agencies telling us what is safe.
Bottom line: You don't get to choose what people worry or care about, and they don't need to care whether you approve of their worries.0 -
Ignorance is bliss.0
-
Apples and apples. Natural and man-made poisons kill equally well. There is also such a thing as so small a dose (of either one) it is insignificant.
So it begs the question; are natural poisons harmless?0 -
No, I'm talking apples and oranges, you're talking apples or oranges. You're saying there is, or people are concerned about, there being something inherently dangerous about man made toxins versus natural. I'm saying the science is clear, your body doesn't know artificial / synthetic versus natural, all it cares about is dose. All natural cyanide will kill you easily, but man made glyphosate (on its own, pure) is safer than table salt. You're doubling down on a naturalistic fallacy, and I assure you, nature doesn't have a plan, it doesn't have a balance, 99.9% of species that have ever existed have gone extinct. If I have a choice between trusting nature and human scientific testing, I know which one is more likely looking out for humans.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
and that recent peer reviewed paper I linked earlier shows how low the exposure is to pesticides resides even in the "dirty dozen".
Anyone eating corn or peanuts eats a natural substance that is probably orders of magnitude more significant than pesticides: aflatoxin B1.
So? We don't get to pick and choose what substances are found naturally in food. We can, to some extent, choose what man added to our food.
The difference is, you're worried about a paper cut while a bear is charging you. You'll see health effects from B1 in your food faster than you will most almost any synthetic pesticide, so the synthetic pesticide makes no sense to worry about, you already have a lower threshold to avoid reaching if you're avoiding things for your health.
Makes no sense to worry about. LOL Yeah, well, I suppose worry is often senseless. But the reason many people prefer to avoid synthetics is to reduce worry. They trust God, Mother Nature, the Earth, <whatever> more than man and government policing agencies. Trust = less worry.
and again, mother earth gives us mycotoxins (which are natural)...which (again) are more significant than pesticides that MIGHT be found at 1/1000th of a NOAEL (no observed adverse effect levels).
I'm not sure of your point. Are you suggesting we should try to avoid all foods with toxins? Wouldn't we starve?
Well seeing as the rate limiting toxin he mentioned was B1 and that is also a required vitamin, I'm thinking his point is not recommending starving. He's saying, you need to understand the dose makes the poison.
We are talking apples and oranges. I'm talking source of the poison, you are talking amount/type. My understanding from sites where organics are routinely discussed is that people are more concerned about natural vs. man-made.
It's not even always about personal health. It's about the land, the air, the water. It's about f'n up the natural order of things. It's about untrusted agencies telling us what is safe.
Bottom line: You don't get to choose what people worry or care about, and they don't need to care whether you approve of their worries.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »RaeBeeBaby wrote: »OP's question was "Do you think eating organic is important?" I would say mostly yes because I wish to ingest as little pesticides and chemicals as possible, FDA rated safe or otherwise. That being said, it is a personal choice and no one should try to impose their opinions on others.
I subscribe to the theory that you should eat as well as you can afford and, for me, that usually includes organic produce. It doesn't make me feel that I'm better than others because I do, it makes me feel better about what I'm putting into my body. Not everyone can afford the higher prices of organic foods, including me. There are times I just refuse to pay $8.50 lb for asparagus or $5.00+ lb for grapes. In that case I will choose less expensive items. When on sale, sometimes the organic items are actually cheaper, so it's good to pay attention.
I didn't read this entire thread so not sure if others have mentioned the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen list. Here's a list of the pesticide loads in food and which have more or less.
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
don't organic farming practices use greater quantities of pesticides...?
I've never heard that. Do you mean quantities as in volume of individual pesticides, or as in number of different pesticides?
volume, not number
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
this...seems like something where I'm going to need one or more citations...
my bad if you've already linked them in here
The link to the EWG site (organization that publishes the Dirty Dozen / Clean Fifteen list) is in this thread, so you can see it if you hit 'show previous quotes'. The site has info on how they compile the list.
unfortunately that study (and related infographic) smacks of sensationalism and poor methodology...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Bottom line: You don't get to choose what people worry or care about, and they don't need to care whether you approve of their worries.
But I would love to use my persuasive powers to dispel some persistent fears. These unreasonable fears might be impeding our ability to bring about some great health improvements. Like golden rice.0 -
No one ever sees that they're fueling the panic that blocks Golden Rice with their ignorance.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Bottom line: You don't get to choose what people worry or care about, and they don't need to care whether you approve of their worries.
But I would love to use my persuasive powers to dispel some persistent fears. These unreasonable fears might be impeding our ability to bring about some great health improvements. Like golden rice.
0 -
-
The Green Revolution, begun in the 1940's, likely prevented world-wide famine. Such a famine was predicted because of explosive human population growth (which is about to peak out, by the way). Fearless innovation prevented catastrophe. Irrational fears need to be addressed so that potentially world-saving techniques aren't squashed.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Bottom line: You don't get to choose what people worry or care about, and they don't need to care whether you approve of their worries.
But I would love to use my persuasive powers to dispel some persistent fears. These unreasonable fears might be impeding our ability to bring about some great health improvements. Like golden rice.
I'm sure a lot of people would like to persuade everyone to think like them. But, that's never going to happen. You'd have to first prove the fear unreasonable. Creating trust is not something that happens easily. Regaining trust is even harder. The agency telling us all pesticides in use today are safe doesn't have a perfect track record.0 -
No-one on the planet has a perfect track record. I'm up for all the elements required to establish trust including fact-based argument and being trustworthy. Fear is the worst argument of all, and often leads to lousy decision making. I mistrust any agency that uses fear as it's prime motivator.0
-
The Green Revolution, begun in the 1940's, likely prevented world-wide famine. Such a famine was predicted because of explosive human population growth (which is about to peak out, by the way). Fearless innovation prevented catastrophe. Irrational fears need to be addressed so that potentially world-saving techniques aren't squashed.
Unless you are suggesting that people choosing to eat organic would have prevented this, I've missed your point.0 -
No-one on the planet has a perfect track record. I'm up for all the elements required to establish trust including fact-based argument and being trustworthy. Fear is the worst argument of all, and often leads to lousy decision making. I mistrust any agency that uses fear as it's prime motivator.
Well, thank goodness the government never does that.
0 -
The Green Revolution relied heavily on fertilizers and newly developed grains.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The Green Revolution, begun in the 1940's, likely prevented world-wide famine. Such a famine was predicted because of explosive human population growth (which is about to peak out, by the way). Fearless innovation prevented catastrophe. Irrational fears need to be addressed so that potentially world-saving techniques aren't squashed.
Unless you are suggesting that people choosing to eat organic would have prevented this, I've missed your point.
You have organic, anti-GMO people like Vandana Shiva claiming the Green Revolution was a disaster and blaming it for malnutrition / dietary deficienies instead of realizing those people alive and deficient would just plain have starved to death without the Green Revolution.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions