Organic...
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Well, thank goodness the government never does that.
And thank goodness that the WWF, [PETA], and Greenpeace never do that either.
[Edited to add: One of the most distasteful American ads I ever watched was a George Bush campaign ad suggesting that he needed to be re-elected to squash the Terrorist Threat. I was appalled.]0 -
That's a false dichotomy and a Tu Quoque in one, mostly outside the scope of the discussion. Do you reel the government is actually trying to scare people out of eating organic, or into eating GMOs?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I know that Green Peace actively works to burn down Golden Rice test crops, probably knowing that the instant Golden Rice is successful, they'll lose a lot of their ability to use fear as a cudgel against the science.
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.
And I'm fine with your choice. And I get that you think people are wrong to be concerned. It doesn't change the fact that people are concerned. Nothing you have said hasn't been said before. Everyone must make their own choices.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Well, thank goodness the government never does that.
And thank goodness that the WWF, [PETA], and Greenpeace never do that either.
[Edited to add: One of the most distasteful American ads I ever watched was a George Bush campaign ad suggesting that he needed to be re-elected to squash the Terrorist Threat. I was appalled.]
Touche0 -
That's a false dichotomy and a Tu Quoque in one, mostly outside the scope of the discussion. Do you reel the government is actually trying to scare people out of eating organic, or into eating GMOs?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I know that Green Peace actively works to burn down Golden Rice test crops, probably knowing that the instant Golden Rice is successful, they'll lose a lot of their ability to use fear as a cudgel against the science.
No, that was a joke.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.
Concern about unreasonable fears is legitimate. Unreasonable fears can hurt everyone (including rational and sane people). E.g. unreasonable fears about vaccines. In Texas, gun enthusiasts are so fearful, they are **legally** openly carrying long guns into Targets & Walmarts. Not kidding. Baby on the hip and rifle slug over the shoulder. Given an innocent shopper was shot dead in an Ohio Walmart because he was carrying a toy gun for sale in the store, this really can't end well. But, you know, it's Texas.
Econoically, costs of the non-GMO movement will be born largely by the fearful. I see that the FDA is set to sell a non-GMO product label, even though there really isn't any enforcement that guarantees the product is what it says. Free market capitalism and all that.
The cost we all do bear --organic and not-- is the cost of waste. Almost half of produce never leaves the farm because it's not "perfect" enough.0 -
Which is how you get Arctic Apples being a product, but suddenly food waste from imperfections or looking spoiled while good won't matter once it hits shelves.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.
Concern about unreasonable fears is legitimate. Unreasonable fears can hurt everyone (including rational and sane people). E.g. unreasonable fears about vaccines. In Texas, gun enthusiasts are so fearful, they are **legally** openly carrying long guns into Targets & Walmarts. Not kidding. Baby on the hip and rifle slug over the shoulder. Given an innocent shopper was shot dead in an Ohio Walmart because he was carrying a toy gun for sale in the store, this really can't end well. But, you know, it's Texas.
Econoically, costs of the non-GMO movement will be born largely by the fearful. I see that the FDA is set to sell a non-GMO product label, even though there really isn't any enforcement that guarantees the product is what it says. Free market capitalism and all that.
The cost we all do bear --organic and not-- is the cost of waste. Almost half of produce never leaves the farm because it's not "perfect" enough.0 -
-1 -
-
It's worth it to me and the produce tastes much better, especially apples, potatoes, corn...0
-
0
-
In the area that I live there is a huge community of clean eating/organic eating. Do you think that eating organic is important?
There are a number of chemicals in food in the U.S. That are banned in the EU. Eating too many chemicals just can't be a good thing. I'm all for organic, although it is important to note that it unfortunately can be cost prohibitive.0 -
There are also chemicals the EU authorizes that prohibited in the US. There are chemicals and processes prohibited in the EU that their own scientific advisers tell them they are wrong about.In the area that I live there is a huge community of clean eating/organic eating. Do you think that eating organic is important?
There are a number of chemicals in food in the U.S. That are banned in the EU. Eating too many chemicals just can't be a good thing. I'm all for organic, although it is important to note that it unfortunately can be cost prohibitive.
0 -
There are also chemicals the EU authorizes that prohibited in the US. There are chemicals and processes prohibited in the EU that their own scientific advisers tell them they are wrong about.In the area that I live there is a huge community of clean eating/organic eating. Do you think that eating organic is important?
There are a number of chemicals in food in the U.S. That are banned in the EU. Eating too many chemicals just can't be a good thing. I'm all for organic, although it is important to note that it unfortunately can be cost prohibitive.
People like to confuse politics with scientific fact.0 -
Re: the OP question "Do you think that eating organic is important?"
I think it may be, but with some caveats. As has been said, both conventional and organic produce have chemicals of some kind or another used on them, so the idea that organic produce, by virtue of the label 'organic,' has no chemicals used on it is simply not true. I had the benefit, if you want to call it that, of developing a rare disorder that makes it so my body can't deal with a LOT of different chemicals. And I react to organic produce as often as conventional, honestly. I eat produce from local farmer's at farmer's markets, who I interview to determine what they've used on their produce. My main supplier uses 'chickens and hope' to control insects and grows only food that grows relatively well in this climate.
So in re: to the comment a while back in this thread, about how boring it would be to only eat food that grows locally? Yeah, it is. I can tell you that from personal experience. But at the same time - you get creative. I live in a desert, so I've been slowly hunting down heirloom fruits and veggies from around the world that grow in similar climates and started growing them myself. So...it can be done, I guess I'd say.
However, there are some issues re: organic foods that hasn't been brought up yet: the use of antibiotics. Organic animal products (milk, meat) cannot come from animals where antibiotics were used regularly, and the use in conventional animal products is poorly documented (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234384/). Considering the problem we are having with antibiotic resistant, world-wide, I think there can be a benefit to buying organic animal products for this reason alone.
With organic produce...this is another issue where the organic label doesn't always mean what one might hope, at least last I looked, because antibiotics can be used on conventional AND organic fruit trees, it seems.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/04/08/176606069/surprise-organic-apples-and-pears-aren-t-free-of-antibiotics
Another issue for organic produce is a bit of an odd one, but still valid. It's re: studies looking at pesticide residue levels, what levels are safe, what impact they can have on the human body, and so on.
The problem is that right now, most medical studies, including those on safety for substances, are done primarily on men (about 80% of them or so). This is a big issue as women have been shown to react differently than men, sometimes significantly so, on some basic physiological levels (here's a quick example: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/11932336_Gender_differences_in_carbohydrate_loading_are_related_to_energy_intake ).
So making safety guidelines for our population, in this case on safe levels of pesticide residues, using data that may only apply to half the population? Possibly not as valid for us on the other half. They MAY apply to us too, don't get me wrong. But we don't actually know right now. So in this situation, it comes down to whether one wishes to not worry about it, or to take a 'better safe than sorry' approach.
...I should add that this same issue applies for safety guidelines for chemicals and pest control agents used for organic produce, too. Sometimes, seems the safest way to do things is to start interviewing your farmers and find out what is used, and decide how safe you feel it is, based on what information you know. Which is, I can personally attest to, a ginormous pain in the behind, so I don't think most people would be willing to do this.0 -
-
What's important to me is growing my own fruit and vegetables. Eating them really fresh. And getting small doses of good garden bacteria (when gardening or eating).0
-
However, there are some issues re: organic foods that hasn't been brought up yet: the use of antibiotics. Organic animal products (milk, meat) cannot come from animals where antibiotics were used regularly, and the use in conventional animal products is poorly documented (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234384/). Considering the problem we are having with antibiotic resistant, world-wide, I think there can be a benefit to buying organic animal products for this reason alone.
This was brought up earlier in the thread. And I totally agree, but would note that while meat must be antibiotic free to be organic, meat doesn't have to be organic to be antibiotic free. And for this reason, I think looking for meat from animals raised without antibiotics or hormones is more important than organic.0 -
I think the USA's antibiotic free requirements for organic is cruel. Where as the UK's requirement allows medically necessary antibiotics, USDA organic requirements are that an animal must NEVER have antibiotics in its life. This means that with the premium of raising something organic, a farmer has a huge incentive to try to force an animal that is sick to get better without antibiotics, even if they're appropriate, because using them means they have to sell the animal as conventional.0
-
krissydelrio wrote: »Personally, I would rather be safe than sorry. I eat as much organic as I can, mainly with meats, dairy, and fruits/vegetables. It's alarming to see an organic piece of fruit next to a conventional piece of fruit, the conventional looks like it is on steroids...why risk it if you don't know what you're putting into your body? I must say that I feel better when I eat organic, my skin has improved, and I feel energized rather than drained. So I will spend the extra money so that one day I at least won't have to say to myself, "I wish I would have done this or that."
This is an amazing side effect experienced by all sorts of things: eating paleo, "clean" eating, juicing, doing "Master Cleanses," Shakeology, Plexus, and curiously enough, simply drinking more water and exercising.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions