The Age Old Debate: Organic or Conventional

MississippiMama87

Let me correct that by saying I have never put a drop of chemical on my land.

You don't water your garden? Water's full of chemicals like hydrogen and oxygen. :happy:

My (admittedly snarky) point, of course, is that EVERYTHING is made up of chemicals. Both the "man-made" stuff and the "mother nature" stuff. It's all chemistry either way, isn't it?

For some reasons we tend to make a distinction that substances that come from nature or from the activities non-human animals are "good", but substances that come from the activities of human animals are "bad".

Which seems odd to me. There are plenty of perfectly "natural" things that are terrible for you--even toxic. And there are plenty of 'human" things that are just fine--even life-saving.

So yeah, I guess it's getting a bit too philosophical for the point of this thread, but... Humans are part of nature, so why aren't they things we make part of nature too? Why is a beaver dam, or a honeycomb, or an anthill considered "nature", but a Ford Mustang or a Apple iPad not? Aren't they all just the result of an animal using the abilities nature gave it to fashion new things out of its environment?

Isn't it interesting that when we use our muscles and organs (the brain is an organ!) to transform some substances into a new substance, we call the result "artificial", but when a spider or a bee does the same thing to make a web or honey we call it "natural"?

Mind=blown. Love this.

PapaChanoli

Let me correct that by saying I have never put a drop of chemical on my land.

You don't water your garden? Water's full of chemicals like hydrogen and oxygen. :happy:

My (admittedly snarky) point, of course, is that EVERYTHING is made up of chemicals. Both the "man-made" stuff and the "mother nature" stuff. It's all chemistry either way, isn't it?

For some reasons we tend to make a distinction that substances that come from nature or from the activities non-human animals are "good", but substances that come from the activities of human animals are "bad".

Which seems odd to me. There are plenty of perfectly "natural" things that are terrible for you--even toxic. And there are plenty of 'human" things that are just fine--even life-saving.

So yeah, I guess it's getting a bit too philosophical for the point of this thread, but... Humans are part of nature, so why aren't they things we make part of nature too? Why is a beaver dam, or a honeycomb, or an anthill considered "nature", but a Ford Mustang or a Apple iPad not? Aren't they all just the result of an animal using the abilities nature gave it to fashion new things out of its environment?

Isn't it interesting that when we use our muscles and organs (the brain is an organ!) to transform some substances into a new substance, we call the result "artificial", but when a spider or a bee does the same thing to make a web or honey we call it "natural"?

Even the term GMO, or Genetically Modified Organism is misleading. Every time you deliberately cross pollenate two plants you are artificially modifying the genetics. If a farmer notices a genetic variant in a fruit and establishes an crop derived from that unique plant, he is generically modifying his crop. That's been happening for thousands of years.

Now, I wouldn't want to eat GMO Round Up Ready Corn or a vegetable that has nicotine genes inserted into its genetics, (both are reality.) my only point is that he terms are very misleading and consumers are often easily manipulated by marketing strategies using these terms.

One great example is "uncured" hot dogs. They are supposed to be better because they don't have nitrates, but they all have celery or celery juice in them. Celery juice turns into nitrates in processing but it's not required to be labeled as such because the ingredient is celery juice. People do pay more for the uncured ones though, otherwise they wouldn't be on the market.

My all time favorite is the Dihydrogen Monoxide scare.

wizzybeth

Never has a chemical touched my land.

Of course it has. Heck, your land is made up of nothing BUT chemicals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance

Let me correct that by saying I have never put a drop of chemical on my land.

You don't water your plants?

Don't be annoying. You know full well what the poster means.

wizzybeth

One thing that always bugs me in this kind of discussion are the people who take ridiculous extremes in their arguments. Hybrid plants and putting water on your garden is not the same thing as putting chemicals on your plants and GMO's and you know it.

Sounds to me that the smugness is coming from the ones who are not concerned about organic, or they think it is just a marketing ploy.

I'm sure some of the organic food is mislabeled - and the USDA does not really inspect or regulate it. It's pretty much about how much you believe the manufacturer re: if it's truly organic or not.

I am really concerned not about hybrid plants but plants that have been so altered genetically that they leave pesticide residue in the human body. It is not something than can be washed off before you eat it - it's in the make up of the plant itself.

I'm not trying to be smug, it's just something that concerns ME. And for ME, I choose to buy organic and non GMO whenever I can. Not to be smug or "better than you" but because I feel it's best for ME. ME, ME, ME, and my family.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

Never has a chemical touched my land.

Of course it has. Heck, your land is made up of nothing BUT chemicals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance

Let me correct that by saying I have never put a drop of chemical on my land.

You don't water your plants?

Don't be annoying. You know full well what the poster means.

Um, sorry? I just think all the unwarranted fears surrounding "chemicals" is a bit silly. Also, organic farmers can put certain pesticides on their produce and still call it organic. Those are also chemicals. Just because humans make something, doesn't make it harmful or a different chemical than one found in nature. We are animals, too, after all. We just happen to be the smartest ones.

kegrip917

I agree with you. There is a lot of information lately on the dangers of GMOs. I'm trying to educate myself on the topic to make healthier food choices. I do not want Roundup in my food.

I do have a question, however. Did I come to the wrong thread to "meet" new friends here on MFP? I'm not sure how to go about it, and I don't want to tread into someone's territory if I'm commenting in the wrong place. Advice welcomed & thanks.

J72FIT

Some food for thought...

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4166

brower47

OOO and I have my own garden of tomatoes, broccoli, swiss chard, lettuce, peas, peppers, squash and gourds. I use 7even to combat flea beetles on my broccoli. I would use it on other edibles too if I had a pest problem. So not even my own garden is "organic". :laugh:

JupeJones

Even the term GMO, or Genetically Modified Organism is misleading. Every time you deliberately cross pollenate two plants you are artificially modifying the genetics. If a farmer notices a genetic variant in a fruit and establishes an crop derived from that unique plant, he is generically modifying his crop. That's been happening for thousands of years.

A good point. We humans have been interfering in the so-called "natural" development of plants for ages. We're just getting more precise at it these days.

You know, 25,000 years or so ago, there was no such thing as a "dog". Humans started selectively breeding and domesticating wolves, and bingo! Now we have Labradoodles and Dobernauzers.

So maybe we just all start calling dogs "GMO Wolves"? :happy:

colibri23

Even the term GMO, or Genetically Modified Organism is misleading. Every time you deliberately cross pollenate two plants you are artificially modifying the genetics. If a farmer notices a genetic variant in a fruit and establishes an crop derived from that unique plant, he is generically modifying his crop. That's been happening for thousands of years.

A good point. We humans have been interfering in the so-called "natural" development of plants for ages. We're just getting more precise at it these days.

You know, 25,000 years or so ago, there was no such thing as a "dog". Humans started selectively breeding and domesticating wolves, and bingo! Now we have Labradoodles and Dobernauzers.

So maybe we just all start calling dogs "GMO Wolves"? :happy:

I read your other post, and I think you make good points! I'm also not sure where I stand completely on organic vs conventional....however, I've heard this argument before about 'GMO' vs 'selective breeding' and I don't think it's a very good comparison. I work in a biological research lab (breast cancer) and I can tell you that mating two wolves together and taking the cutest offspring/the offspring with the most desirable traits is pretty different than slicing into an organism's DNA and changing/inserting a chunk of DNA.

I'm truly not convinced that GMOs are in and of themselves bad for your health; on the contrary, it's silly to fear a scientific advancement just because it's new and unfamiliar to the public. However, the fact that it is new means that we don't know potential long term health consequences and unfortunately it's one of those "time will tell" type of deals. What I do know, or what the evidence that I've read seems to point to, is that growing GMO crops in monoculture is bad for our environment, is by and large unsustainable, and is therefore an mostly undesirable process.

Edited for spelling

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

OOO and I have my own garden of tomatoes, broccoli, swiss chard, lettuce, peas, peppers, squash and gourds. I use 7even to combat flea beetles on my broccoli. I would use it on other edibles too if I had a pest problem. So not even my own garden is "organic". :laugh:

Beware because chemicals. Also toxins. And GMOs, oh noes.

Escloflowne

I love how people think "organic" labelled food don't have forms of synthetic pesticides used on them....

JupeJones

What I do know, or what the evidence that I've read seems to point to, is that growing GMO crops in monoculture is bad for our environment, is by and large unsustainable, and is therefore an mostly undesirable process.

Yes, I think if there's a cause for concern, that's it.

I think it's pretty much settled these days that organic/non-gmo foods aren't really any more or less healthier for you, the individual, directly, than the alternative. But man-made pesticides and genetic modification can sometimes (not always!) be used as tools in processes that can have longer-term negative externalities.

So I suppose the question is, what's the best way to handle those cases? Is avoiding GM produce at the grocery store the best way to encourage more responsible farming practices? To what extent does it discourage legitimate GM benefits, such as reducing hunger in developing countries?

bcattoes

I grow a lot of my own produce and I grow it organically.

But food at the store with the 'organic' label is not pesticide free, and soon may not even be limited to natural pesticides. The label has less and less meaning as years go by and the FDA approves more and more pesticides for use under the 'organic' label.

I buy produce by freshness and price. Surprisingly, organic is often the cheaper option for some fruits and vegetables at the grocery store.

Throughout the warmer months I buy most of what I don't grow at the farmers market, but little of it is organic, and none of it is certified organic. Sevin is widely used on local farms.

SideSteel

I'm not convinced that there's any danger in non-organic produce and consequently I don't buy organic.

neandermagnon

Never has a chemical touched my land.

Of course it has. Heck, your land is made up of nothing BUT chemicals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance

Let me correct that by saying I have never put a drop of chemical on my land.

You don't water your plants?

Don't be annoying. You know full well what the poster means.

No, it's a very important point. It's basic science... matter is made of chemicals. Water is a chemical. All this fear of "chemicals" is fearmongering

There are natural compounds in the death cap toadstool that will make you die a painful and very unpleasant death about 10-15 days after eating it. It is 100% natural.

Apparently death cap toadstools taste very nice, according to people who ate them by accident (they are very easily confused with some edible fungus).

Ergot is another 100% natural fungus that grows on rye will make you die a terrifying and painful death (it contains a compound similar to LSD that makes people have terrifying hallucinations while they're dying a painful death from this toxin's other effects)......... you can get that from eating organic rye as the fungus is hard to spot.


This distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" chemicals is misleading. Just because something's natural it does not mean it's good for you, or harmless. Just because something's unnatural, it doesn't mean it's bad for you. And it's all chemicals. You're made of chemicals. All the food you eat is made of chemicals. The air you breathe is made of chemicals. You paid attention in year 7 science classes, right? (Or whatever grade it was that covered this in the American system.)

poohbah4

Two separate issues . . . processed and organic/non-organic. Personally, I try to avoid most processed foods, and I have my own veggie garden in the summer. But in my opinion, organic produce is highly overrated.

poohbah4

And BTW, I was a chemist for 35 years and analyzed a great many foods for residues of pesticides. I have also followed the yearly results of the FDA surveys of foods for pesticide residues. The VAST majority of foods, something like 90+% contain no detectable residues of pesticides (the limits of detection are in the parts-per-billion range using modern methods and instruments). Of the small amount where residues were detected, they were predominantly well below the limits permitted in the particular food. Of the even smaller number of violative residues, the majority were traces of pesticides not registered for use in that particular food.

colibri23

So I suppose the question is, what's the best way to handle those cases? Is avoiding GM produce at the grocery store the best way to encourage more responsible farming practices? To what extent does it discourage legitimate GM benefits, such as reducing hunger in developing countries?

Again, excellent points. I'm not convinced that avoiding GM produce is the best way to encourage more responsible farming practices. I certainly think that such an avoidance not enough, by itself, to bring about some sort of drastic change in the practice of sustainable farming. But I also don't have the answer to what will---more crop rotation, and less monoculture for sure, but then how does one 'encourage' such a thing in these gigantic factory farm whose wheels are already turning quite profitably? Perhaps one answer is buying a diet that is diverse, based on plants and whole foods, and when possible is locally sourced....it seems to me that if I were to go that route, rather than buying corn and soybean filled products as many (read: most) conventionally and readily packaged food is, my dollars might speak for me. I know that's not the perfect answer to encourage sustainable farming. I know that there are probably downsides to it---but I think, based on what I've read, that it's probably a better answer than shrugging and doing nothing. What do you think?

Also, I think that the potential benefits of GM crops are all too often completely overlooked. Besides reducing hunger, what about the potential of something like Golden Rice? The idea of being able to supply MORE micronutrient rich food is awesome, the benefits of which would be particularly striking in areas of the world in which people are super deficient in a particular micronutrient while also being malnurished. Exciting things, really, and surely worthy of more study! It's an interesting thought that avoiding GMO crops in the grocery store might lead to less effort going towards studying agriculture GE when it comes to more global benefits such as hunger and malnurishment. I would like to believe that GM plants such as Golden Rice would still get studied and funded as a project without a high demand for GM plants that are pesticide resistant and grown in mega farms---but that may be being naive. The problem is that people don't distinguish between these two examples of GM plants, and lump all "GMOs" as either "bad" or "fine" when really it depends on whether you mean for your health (probably fine, but again time will tell) or the environment (seems to be bad under current practices).

fooninie

I don't care about the organic labels. I believe to be truly organic, you would have to grow it yourself, which in your case, you do, so great! I am more of the Non-GMO type. Modifying foods seems unnatural and concerns me much more.