New article against organic food...

Annie_01

asflatasapancake wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Annie_01 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Shalaurise wrote: »

I just bought "certified organic" peacotums (apricot-plum-peach hybrid) two weeks ago. Washed off more pesticides off them than I did anything else I bought at that farmers market...

I'd be curious to know how you know this. How did you measure the amount of pesticides washed off? What pesticides were they?

I was curious about this also. I wash my vegetables and quite honestly I have never noticed any pesticides being washed down the drain.

The reason provided was ridiculous. I can understand why people wouldn't buy organic and I can also understand why they would. I can't understand why people get so dead set against organic being an option.

I think for me it's mainly price. I happen to buy organic bananas just because they are ripe immediately and I don't usually have to wait for the green ones to turn. Do I think they taste better? Not really. Do I go out of my way to buy organic? No. I accidentally picked up some organic grapes the other day and they were nearly $5 per pound. That's not happening. Whatever other benefit people want to argue over is completely up to them.

The difference in price of the non-organic vs organic bananas is minimal at the store where I shop. I have found little difference in taste and both turn brown just as rapidly as the other. I buy my bananas based on size...I like a smaller banana over a larger one so which ever type happens to have the size I want is the option I choose.

Need2Exerc1se

Annie_01 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Annie_01 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Shalaurise wrote: »

I just bought "certified organic" peacotums (apricot-plum-peach hybrid) two weeks ago. Washed off more pesticides off them than I did anything else I bought at that farmers market...

I'd be curious to know how you know this. How did you measure the amount of pesticides washed off? What pesticides were they?

I was curious about this also. I wash my vegetables and quite honestly I have never noticed any pesticides being washed down the drain.

The reason provided was ridiculous. I can understand why people wouldn't buy organic and I can also understand why they would. I can't understand why people get so dead set against organic being an option.

For me it comes down to economics...I just literally can not afford the difference in price. I do however use the organic option if I really need a specific food item and the non-organic appearance is rather disgusting.

My best example of that is the cilantro that I buy...I use it a lot. Non-organic...28 cents...the organic $1.28. I have needed some for a recipe and the non-organic was wilted so I opted for the organic...just gritted my teeth about the difference in price.

I would love to shop Whole Foods...their produce is amazing. That amazing comes at a price though...about 4 times more expensive than what I can buy produce else where.

IMO...Food has become the next religion...I will leave it at that.

LOL at the last sentence. So true!

We grow most of our produce, but I do about the same as you when buying at the store. I buy organic if it looks fresh and is only a little more, or sometimes even less, than non-organic.

A little off subject, but have you tried growing your own cilantro? It grows really well in a pot, even inside on a window sill. You can save the seeds to replant or for ground coriander.

Need2Exerc1se

sjp_511 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

DeguelloTex wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

sjp_511 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

_John_ wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

Drewlssix wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Escloflowne wrote: »

"Organic" is just another way to sell the same thing to stupid people at a higher price...most of the time "organic" is inferior, it's also not sustainable for our population. Just dumb hipsters trying to be "cool"

Inferior in what way?

Many organic labeled produce uses "organic" pesticides that are less effective and more toxic than modern options.

I've seen this purported but never a citation. Got one?

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/xmas/pesticides/labels/Roundup-orig-max-msds.pdf

Roundup...practically non-toxic to mammals...many chemicals on the "approved" organic list will be FAR more toxic than this, but not knowing what the chemicals are actually used for, it's hard to give a direct comparison, use for use.

Non-toxic to mammals isn't the same as non-toxic or safe for the environment. Other creatures inhabit the Earth besides mammals.

Round-up ready crops allows for no-till growing methods. No-till reduces erosion and promotes healthy soil. Organic methods includes a lot of tilling, which leads to erosion and strips the topsoil of nutrients.

Not if you practice good farming methods.

Do you have a citation or a study to support this?

Nope. Just experience and good, tilled twice a year, topsoil.

Because your small organic garden is the perfect model for how all food should be produced

Perfect model? Yeah, I think so.

irnz

I think rather than looking at organic versus non-organic food, we should be trying to go for local (when the climate allows for it). Usually, this means that the crop is picked closer to a ripe stage (at least from what it looks like to me). I just follow my nose and eyes when I shop and they usually end up pointing me towards things that were grown closer to home with the exception of bananas and some exotic items that just don't grow in California. Plus, the closer the farm to the store/farmer's market, the less pollution and cost from transportation.

I also hate the use of the word "organic" because that to me just means something that it is a carbon-based in structure and has nothing to do with nutrition content or safety. They should pick a better name and define it better.

A note on GMOs: we have been slowly genetically modifying our food since humans began agriculture by selecting the crops with the genetic markers we preferred (larger, sweeter crops, more resistant to pests) and crossing different variations together, as well as cloning. All apples and potatoes we eat are technically clones within their respective varieties. If you tried to just plant the seeds from an apple or a potato, you would have about 99% of your crop be almost inedible because it would be bitter, too sour, or toxic and maybe 1% would be a new variety that might be edible (I should add here that some farmers do this in order to find potential new varieties of apples and potatoes, but it is very expensive). Apples are grown by grafting branches of existing apple trees to a sapling, thereby causing the plant to take on the genetic information of that graft. Potatoes are usually grown by cutting up a seeding potato into chunks and planting that, which will then branch out and produce new potatoes with that genetic information. I think that the current way of genetically modifying our food gets the job done faster, but there should be testing to determine the safety (naturally occurring toxins) and potential pitfalls (vulnerability to disease, potential of causing pests to evolve to resist pesticides currently being used) before growing them on a commercial level.

Need2Exerc1se

irnz wrote: »

I think rather than looking at organic versus non-organic food, we should be trying to go for local (when the climate allows for it). Usually, this means that the crop is picked closer to a ripe stage (at least from what it looks like to me). I just follow my nose and eyes when I shop and they usually end up pointing me towards things that were grown closer to home with the exception of bananas and some exotic items that just don't grow in California. Plus, the closer the farm to the store/farmer's market, the less pollution and cost from transportation.

I also hate the use of the word "organic" because that to me just means something that it is a carbon-based in structure and has nothing to do with nutrition content or safety. They should pick a better name and define it better.

A note on GMOs: we have been slowly genetically modifying our food since humans began agriculture by selecting the crops with the genetic markers we preferred (larger, sweeter crops, more resistant to pests) and crossing different variations together, as well as cloning. All apples and potatoes we eat are technically clones within their respective varieties. If you tried to just plant the seeds from an apple or a potato, you would have about 99% of your crop be almost inedible because it would be bitter, too sour, or toxic and maybe 1% would be a new variety that might be edible (I should add here that some farmers do this in order to find potential new varieties of apples and potatoes, but it is very expensive). Apples are grown by grafting branches of existing apple trees to a sapling, thereby causing the plant to take on the genetic information of that graft. Potatoes are usually grown by cutting up a seeding potato into chunks and planting that, which will then branch out and produce new potatoes with that genetic information. I think that the current way of genetically modifying our food gets the job done faster, but there should be testing to determine the safety (naturally occurring toxins) and potential pitfalls (vulnerability to disease, potential of causing pests to evolve to resist pesticides currently being used) before growing them on a commercial level.

GMO foods doesn't refer to hybridization or cross breeding. GM/GE is done in a lab, not a field.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
1. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.

irnz

GMO foods doesn't refer to hybridization or cross breeding. GM/GE is done in a lab, not a field.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
1. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.[/quote]


Sorry, I think my point didn't get across as clearly as I could like.
What I was trying to get across here is that in human history the genetic changes have been gradual and therefore you could see the effects those gradual changes may have on the toxicity levels of the food and the effects on the ecosystem. With the changes being much faster with current technologies that allow for insertion or deletion of specific genes to occur within the same generation of the organism, they should do more stringent testing to determine these effects before growing the new crop commercially. If they can do that, then I don't have much of a problem eating GMO products.

Need2Exerc1se

irnz wrote: »

GMO foods doesn't refer to hybridization or cross breeding. GM/GE is done in a lab, not a field.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
1. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.

Sorry, I think my point didn't get across as clearly as I could like.
What I was trying to get across here is that in human history the genetic changes have been gradual and therefore you could see the effects those gradual changes may have on the toxicity levels of the food and the effects on the ecosystem. With the changes being much faster with current technologies that allow for insertion or deletion of specific genes to occur within the same generation of the organism, they should do more stringent testing to determine these effects before growing the new crop commercially. If they can do that, then I don't have much of a problem eating GMO products.

Oh, okay. Yes, I did not get your point originally. I quite agree with it though.

_Terrapin_

sjp_511 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

_John_ wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

Drewlssix wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Escloflowne wrote: »

"Organic" is just another way to sell the same thing to stupid people at a higher price...most of the time "organic" is inferior, it's also not sustainable for our population. Just dumb hipsters trying to be "cool"

Inferior in what way?

Many organic labeled produce uses "organic" pesticides that are less effective and more toxic than modern options.

I've seen this purported but never a citation. Got one?

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/xmas/pesticides/labels/Roundup-orig-max-msds.pdf

Roundup...practically non-toxic to mammals...many chemicals on the "approved" organic list will be FAR more toxic than this, but not knowing what the chemicals are actually used for, it's hard to give a direct comparison, use for use.

Non-toxic to mammals isn't the same as non-toxic or safe for the environment. Other creatures inhabit the Earth besides mammals.

Round-up ready crops allows for no-till growing methods. No-till reduces erosion and promotes healthy soil. Organic methods includes a lot of tilling, which leads to erosion and strips the topsoil of nutrients.

You may want to look up crimper rollers; organic farmers who no till in our county enjoy avoiding using Roundup as much as possible. A roller camper provides them a tool to accomplish minimizing herbicides and using no till techniques at the same time.