The Age Old Debate: Organic or Conventional

I have summer gardens too and grow a lot of veggies organically. Nothing quite like fresh picked veggies. I buy organic veggies and fruits as often as I can but don't stress about it if they aren't available or are too expensive. Washing produce, no matter if it is organic or not, is a must.

I go organic if the price difference isn't huge. The only thing I only buy organic is milk for the kids.

I have a very similar food philosophy. I grow a summer veggie garden, a year round herb garden, and we have a couple fruit trees. I belong to an organic CSA as well. I try to buy mostly organic and non-GMO. I think many people would buy all organic if the price was the same as conventional. When people can't afford organic, they still need to feed their families so they buy conventional.

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"?

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"?

Of all the things I have read on MFP this is my favorite.

Organic is merely a label. Those who have paid the appropriate amount of money to the appropriate government organization to put it on their foods. Those who can't afford to pay these fees may very well still grow food "organically" but simply aren't labeled as such.

There are a specific list of things that can't be used on the plants and have them still be labeled organic. This does not however mean that no pesticides are used. It just means that none on the list were used. I love to buy local. I refuse to pay more for something just because someone paid the government to label their food to go with the latest gimmick.

I actually avoid anything labeled organic. I once started to bag some "organic" apples and then saw I was in the wrong section of the produce area. I then unbagged them and got the "non organic" apples.

I don't buy into marketing ploys, at least I try not to.

ETA: I actually do buy one product that's labeled organic. It's an apricot beer made by Samuel Smith's. It's delicious.

Organic when possible, but it's really too expensive. One day I'll live somewhere I can have a garden. Not entirely sure any of my leafy experimental victims will survive, though.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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