Organic Foods: Worth It?

CoachReddy

Organic farming is also far more abusive to farm land due to the fact that yield per acre is half or less conventional means.
Lower yield per acre drive costs up but with no proportional gain in real benefit to the consumer. It is just more expensive. While that higher prioce makes some people think something is better, for most of us facts are more important.

How is organic farming more abusive to the land? I'm not trolling, I'm interested in how this is so. Wouldn't a lower yield per acre mean that it's actually leaching less minerals out of the land, and with hopefully lower-damaging pesticides (knowing that not all organic farmers use the less harmful pesticides) hurt the land less? And personally I don't find that if it's more expensive it's better for you, but I know there are plenty of hipsters that do.

it's not

RandomMiranda

I eat what I can afford, and right now that's not organic usually.
You should know that if produce crosses state or international borders it is sprayed with pesticides, even if it was grown organically. So if you are concerned about not ingesting pesticides you'll want to buy local.

kateauch

Organic farming is also far more abusive to farm land due to the fact that yield per acre is half or less conventional means.
Lower yield per acre drive costs up but with no proportional gain in real benefit to the consumer. It is just more expensive. While that higher prioce makes some people think something is better, for most of us facts are more important.

How is organic farming more abusive to the land? I'm not trolling, I'm interested in how this is so. Wouldn't a lower yield per acre mean that it's actually leaching less minerals out of the land, and with hopefully lower-damaging pesticides (knowing that not all organic farmers use the less harmful pesticides) hurt the land less? And personally I don't find that if it's more expensive it's better for you, but I know there are plenty of hipsters that do.

Yield=inputs/outputs. You put in the same amount (soil/fertilizer/water/seed) and get less produce (corn/wheat/crop) for what you have put in with organically raised foods versus GMO's. Less yield doesn't mean you're taking less out of the soil, it just means your putting the same amount in and getting less out.

primal7

What made me go more organic on my purchases, was I moved to the Ca Central Coast for work and while doing my daily routine I noticed that the workers were wearing coverings that looked like haz mat suits while in the fields. So I wondered If the people who grow and pick our food need protection then how can it be good for us?
It is a personal choice, and my thought is I am worth the extra expense for health especially for fruits and veggies!

hbunting86

Also, if you did a blind taste test, you'd most likely choose traditionally raised beef versus grass fed anyway. Traditionally fed beef has higher marbling, more fat, in the muscle which then equates to a tastier steak. Grass fed cattle have lower sub and inter cutaneous fat stores as grass is lower in lipids than corn thus less fat deposited in the muscle and a drier steak.

This depends. It is true that grass-fed is leaner. If you cook corn-fed and grass-fed the 'usual' (high heat, quickly) way, then yes, the grass-fed will be drier. But, that isn't cooking lean meat right - it needs lower heat and a longer cooking time for the meat to be tender and juicy. If both pieces of meat are cooked properly (optimum method for each), then it's down to simple taste profile preference rather than a choice between a dry piece of meat or a juicy one.

Also think about real-world applicability. Since when did you do blind shopping?

Beezil

Multiple reasons, the least involve the potential adverse health effects of GMOs.

I don’t support the manipulation of our regulatory systems to get GMOs approved, and the power businesses have over government and the food system is unacceptable, in my opinion. It’s bad science and bad business. This is allowing technology to get ahead of us and our knowledge about our food system. I don’t support doing “science” and inventing new things just for the sake of well, science. We’ve clearly identified potential benefit of GMOs, and we have yet to test adequately not only if those benefits are really and truly there and if so, whether they outweigh the risks of what we intend to do with GMOs. We have not tested, from what I’ve seen, any of that.

The pesticides that are used on GMOs have significant adverse health effects on farmers and potentially on those that consume them (so it is not necessarily about GMOs themselves, but the kind of pesticides used and the amount that is used). We know the pesticides used are terrible for the environment, our water, and other food sources (meat), not to mention the problems we now have with super bugs/weeds and lack of biodiversity. I also have plenty of issues with using GMOs to “feed” other countries, but I won’t get into those.

Most organic produce tastes better, in my opinion. Most organic farmers use fewer pesticides and avoid the ones that have evidence for potential adverse health effects.

Supporting local farmers is inherently better for the environment - less travel time for my food to get to me. It’s usually fresher because of this as well, and again, tastes better. It’s better for farmers and their business, and it promotes a better, healthier local economy.

I take a cautionary, but not fearful, approach to my food. I think the anti-GMO movement is far too focused on the potential adverse health effects of GMOs and use anger and fear mongering instead of healthy skepticism, and it prevents others from truly listening to them.

And the difference is that I don't believe I should have to force those beliefs on anyone else. I don't tell people organic food is better for them because I don't think we really have the evidence for it right now. I only ever ask others to consider why they have the position they have. The fact that people can say there is no evidence that GMOs are bad for us so I'll keep eating them shows me they don't understand the other issues and could care less about learning more. And the fact that those on the other side of this are telling people GMOs have been proven to cause cancer also tells me they don't understand the real issues and could care less about learning more.

I love you.

/endthread

kateauch

Also, if you did a blind taste test, you'd most likely choose traditionally raised beef versus grass fed anyway. Traditionally fed beef has higher marbling, more fat, in the muscle which then equates to a tastier steak. Grass fed cattle have lower sub and inter cutaneous fat stores as grass is lower in lipids than corn thus less fat deposited in the muscle and a drier steak.

This depends. It is true that grass-fed is leaner. If you cook corn-fed and grass-fed the 'usual' (high heat, quickly) way, then yes, the grass-fed will be drier. But, that isn't cooking lean meat right - it needs lower heat and a longer cooking time for the meat to be tender and juicy. If both pieces of meat are cooked properly (optimum method for each), then it's down to simple taste profile preference rather than a choice between a dry piece of meat or a juicy one.

Also think about real-world applicability. Since when did you do blind shopping?

Since when do you rely on just one of your five senses?

CoachReddy

Multiple reasons, the least involve the potential adverse health effects of GMOs.

I don’t support the manipulation of our regulatory systems to get GMOs approved, and the power businesses have over government and the food system is unacceptable, in my opinion. It’s bad science and bad business. This is allowing technology to get ahead of us and our knowledge about our food system. I don’t support doing “science” and inventing new things just for the sake of well, science. We’ve clearly identified potential benefit of GMOs, and we have yet to test adequately not only if those benefits are really and truly there and if so, whether they outweigh the risks of what we intend to do with GMOs. We have not tested, from what I’ve seen, any of that.

The pesticides that are used on GMOs have significant adverse health effects on farmers and potentially on those that consume them (so it is not necessarily about GMOs themselves, but the kind of pesticides used and the amount that is used). We know the pesticides used are terrible for the environment, our water, and other food sources (meat), not to mention the problems we now have with super bugs/weeds and lack of biodiversity. I also have plenty of issues with using GMOs to “feed” other countries, but I won’t get into those.

Most organic produce tastes better, in my opinion. Most organic farmers use fewer pesticides and avoid the ones that have evidence for potential adverse health effects.

Supporting local farmers is inherently better for the environment - less travel time for my food to get to me. It’s usually fresher because of this as well, and again, tastes better. It’s better for farmers and their business, and it promotes a better, healthier local economy.

I take a cautionary, but not fearful, approach to my food. I think the anti-GMO movement is far too focused on the potential adverse health effects of GMOs and use anger and fear mongering instead of healthy skepticism, and it prevents others from truly listening to them.

And the difference is that I don't believe I should have to force those beliefs on anyone else. I don't tell people organic food is better for them because I don't think we really have the evidence for it right now. I only ever ask others to consider why they have the position they have. The fact that people can say there is no evidence that GMOs are bad for us so I'll keep eating them shows me they don't understand the other issues and could care less about learning more. And the fact that those on the other side of this are telling people GMOs have been proven to cause cancer also tells me they don't understand the real issues and could care less about learning more.

I love you.

/endthread

agreed. that covered just about everything

Afura

Organic farming is also far more abusive to farm land due to the fact that yield per acre is half or less conventional means.
Lower yield per acre drive costs up but with no proportional gain in real benefit to the consumer. It is just more expensive. While that higher prioce makes some people think something is better, for most of us facts are more important.

How is organic farming more abusive to the land? I'm not trolling, I'm interested in how this is so. Wouldn't a lower yield per acre mean that it's actually leaching less minerals out of the land, and with hopefully lower-damaging pesticides (knowing that not all organic farmers use the less harmful pesticides) hurt the land less? And personally I don't find that if it's more expensive it's better for you, but I know there are plenty of hipsters that do.

Yield=inputs/outputs. You put in the same amount (soil/fertilizer/water/seed) and get less produce (corn/wheat/crop) for what you have put in with organically raised foods versus GMO's. Less yield doesn't mean you're taking less out of the soil, it just means your putting the same amount in and getting less out.

Ok, I get that in response to my second question, but my first question still remains. How is organic farming more abusive to the land. The original comment (which I know was not from you) was that organic farming is far more abusive to farm land. I understand you are getting less of a yield to it, but how is this, or the general organic practices in whole, more abusive?

Afura

Also, if you did a blind taste test, you'd most likely choose traditionally raised beef versus grass fed anyway. Traditionally fed beef has higher marbling, more fat, in the muscle which then equates to a tastier steak. Grass fed cattle have lower sub and inter cutaneous fat stores as grass is lower in lipids than corn thus less fat deposited in the muscle and a drier steak.

This depends. It is true that grass-fed is leaner. If you cook corn-fed and grass-fed the 'usual' (high heat, quickly) way, then yes, the grass-fed will be drier. But, that isn't cooking lean meat right - it needs lower heat and a longer cooking time for the meat to be tender and juicy. If both pieces of meat are cooked properly (optimum method for each), then it's down to simple taste profile preference rather than a choice between a dry piece of meat or a juicy one.

Also think about real-world applicability. Since when did you do blind shopping?

Since when do you rely on just one of your five senses?

3AM trip to the bathroom with my eyes closed.

CoachReddy

Also, if you did a blind taste test, you'd most likely choose traditionally raised beef versus grass fed anyway. Traditionally fed beef has higher marbling, more fat, in the muscle which then equates to a tastier steak. Grass fed cattle have lower sub and inter cutaneous fat stores as grass is lower in lipids than corn thus less fat deposited in the muscle and a drier steak.

This depends. It is true that grass-fed is leaner. If you cook corn-fed and grass-fed the 'usual' (high heat, quickly) way, then yes, the grass-fed will be drier. But, that isn't cooking lean meat right - it needs lower heat and a longer cooking time for the meat to be tender and juicy. If both pieces of meat are cooked properly (optimum method for each), then it's down to simple taste profile preference rather than a choice between a dry piece of meat or a juicy one.

Also think about real-world applicability. Since when did you do blind shopping?

Since when do you rely on just one of your five senses?

3AM trip to the bathroom with my eyes closed.

QFT :drinker:

Mykaelous

Organic farming is also far more abusive to farm land due to the fact that yield per acre is half or less conventional means.
Lower yield per acre drive costs up but with no proportional gain in real benefit to the consumer. It is just more expensive. While that higher prioce makes some people think something is better, for most of us facts are more important.

How is organic farming more abusive to the land? I'm not trolling, I'm interested in how this is so. Wouldn't a lower yield per acre mean that it's actually leaching less minerals out of the land, and with hopefully lower-damaging pesticides (knowing that not all organic farmers use the less harmful pesticides) hurt the land less? And personally I don't find that if it's more expensive it's better for you, but I know there are plenty of hipsters that do.

Yield=inputs/outputs. You put in the same amount (soil/fertilizer/water/seed) and get less produce (corn/wheat/crop) for what you have put in with organically raised foods versus GMO's. Less yield doesn't mean you're taking less out of the soil, it just means your putting the same amount in and getting less out.

Ok, I get that in response to my second question, but my first question still remains. How is organic farming more abusive to the land. The original comment (which I know was not from you) was that organic farming is far more abusive to farm land. I understand you are getting less of a yield to it, but how is this, or the general organic practices in whole, more abusive?

Her perspective is that if you have land and leave it barren as opposed to using it to produce something it is considered an abuse of the land. Its like a house on your street that is all boarded up and the weeds are creeping in. It's abusive because it is not maintained and drives down the value of the land and surrounding areas. Because "organic" farms produce less food per acre they drive up the cost of food which causes the poorest individuals in the world to go un-nourished.

What gets me is that even if say "organic" food was better they still suffer from unintended fertilization from GMO foods due to pollinators such as the birds and bees. It is very likely that the "organic" food you are eating has genes from GMO foods simply out of practicality.

CoachReddy

Organic farming is also far more abusive to farm land due to the fact that yield per acre is half or less conventional means.
Lower yield per acre drive costs up but with no proportional gain in real benefit to the consumer. It is just more expensive. While that higher prioce makes some people think something is better, for most of us facts are more important.

How is organic farming more abusive to the land? I'm not trolling, I'm interested in how this is so. Wouldn't a lower yield per acre mean that it's actually leaching less minerals out of the land, and with hopefully lower-damaging pesticides (knowing that not all organic farmers use the less harmful pesticides) hurt the land less? And personally I don't find that if it's more expensive it's better for you, but I know there are plenty of hipsters that do.

Yield=inputs/outputs. You put in the same amount (soil/fertilizer/water/seed) and get less produce (corn/wheat/crop) for what you have put in with organically raised foods versus GMO's. Less yield doesn't mean you're taking less out of the soil, it just means your putting the same amount in and getting less out.

Ok, I get that in response to my second question, but my first question still remains. How is organic farming more abusive to the land. The original comment (which I know was not from you) was that organic farming is far more abusive to farm land. I understand you are getting less of a yield to it, but how is this, or the general organic practices in whole, more abusive?

Her perspective is that if you have land and leave it barren as opposed to using it to produce something it is considered an abuse of the land. Its like a house on your street that is all boarded up and the weeds are creeping in. It's abusive because it is not maintained and drives down the value of the land and surrounding areas. Because "organic" farms produce less food per acre they drive up the cost of food which causes the poorest individuals in the world to go un-nourished.

What gets me is that even if say "organic" food was better they still suffer from unintended fertilization from GMO foods due to pollinators such as the birds and bees. It is very likely that the "organic" food you are eating has genes from GMO foods simply out of practicality.

1) I don't think veggies need to be pollinated to produce... could be wrong though

2) organic farms in the US have no impact on the nourishment of Africans. and they don't drive up the cost of food that comes from non-organic farms. you don't wanna pay what the food's worth, you don't have to. unless you're suggesting that if there WERE no organic farms, all produce would be cheaper - and on that you're probably right, but it would also be less healthful for me and the environment, so personally i don't think it's worth it.

HotrodsGirl0107

I buy what I can afford which usually is not organic.