The Age Old Debate: Organic or Conventional

I mentioned organic foods in a post and it stirred up all kinds of comments. So, I was wondering how the majority feels on the subject.
My humble opinion: Eat organic whenever possible. Who needs the added junk they put on our foods to prolong shelf life and keep insects from eating our food. Insects are small, I think they'll leave some for us :wink:
I agree that organic foods are not "better" for you in that the nutrients in vegetables don't change when you leave off the pesticides, herbicides. . .
I have an advantage however; we grow a lot of our own food. We have a vegetable garden, herb garden, a pear tree, apple tree, plum tree, apricot tree, mulberry tree, raspberry bushes, blackberry bushes, blueberry bushes and 2 grape arbors. Over the years I've planted them for the very purpose of providing my family with good clean produce.
Never has a chemical touched my land. I don't have a lot of land either. All of this is grown on less than an acre with enough open space to look like I have a gold course.
I have a pony who also eats only organic as well as my chickens. Many of the herbs and small veggies (i.e. cherry tomatoes, hot peppers) grow on my porch.
So yeah, I am a proponent of organic foods. If you can't grow them, afford them or find them than convention is the next best thing so don't go without your fruits and veggies.
«134

Replies

  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,067 Member
    I'm of the opinion that the whole "organic" thing is mostly a money grab, im sure it makes a bit of difference but most of the pesticides and whatnot are washed off.

    there is almost always some sort of chemical contamination on the soil, be it from runoff from another source, direct contact with chemicals, or even rain bringing pollutants down to ground level. you can only get so organic

    but again, this is mostly my speculation, i havent really done all that much research on the topic
  • WonkaCat
    WonkaCat Posts: 42
    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.
  • CupcakesMom2
    CupcakesMom2 Posts: 154 Member
    I agree its better to go organic. However I am worried that in some cases I'm paying more and being lied to lol.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    I go organic if the price difference isn't huge. The only thing I only buy organic is milk for the kids.
  • laurie7075
    laurie7075 Posts: 33 Member
    I am doing my best to eat organic whenever possible....or at least GMO free. It's the GMO's that really scare me. I absolutely love Whole Foods and Trader Joe's...but who can afford to shop there all the time? And I have read that a lot of their products do contain GMO's because it is near impossible to avoid (I try to look for the non-gmo labels or 100% organic). I have decided that I would rather buy less of a good thing, especially where I find myself throwing out a lot of food that I never get around to eating. I try to buy meat at Whole Foods or if shopping elsewhere looking for no hormone/antibiotic meats and organic chicken. I commend all of you garden growers! I sure wish I had a green thumb!!
  • AylaL13
    AylaL13 Posts: 10 Member
    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.
  • JupeJones
    JupeJones Posts: 107 Member
    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
  • RosanaRosanaDana
    RosanaRosanaDana Posts: 93 Member
    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.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    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?
  • JupeJones
    JupeJones Posts: 107 Member
    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"?
  • BeginningAgainMay14
    BeginningAgainMay14 Posts: 97 Member
    I think organic is probably preferable, but I eat a LOT of fruits and veggies on a not-unlimited budget. I buy mostly conventional, except for milk and eggs.
  • azrubael
    azrubael Posts: 65 Member
    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.
  • rowlandsw
    rowlandsw Posts: 1,166 Member
    we buy local and grow but organic is so overpriced in the stores we go with the cheaper stuff.
  • Shalaurise
    Shalaurise Posts: 707 Member
    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.
  • kegrip917
    kegrip917 Posts: 14
    I choose organic and non-GMO at every opportunity. Reading up lately on the effects of Genetically Modified Organisms and none of it's good. I just feel better knowing that I'm buying Certified Organic for my husband and me. I cook all of our meals and use a minimum of processed foods.

    I am a returning member to MFP and have just begun a low-carb, high protein & moderate fat diet, combined with an increase in exercise.

    I am 52 years old, just about finished with menopause (thank goodness... ) and have watched my weight creep up over the past 5 years. I have about 60 lbs. to lose and would appreciate any advice and meeting new people here :)
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    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.
  • A farmer once told my brother all his "organic" produce still gets sprayed with pesticides and gets fertilizer. Otherwise they never become the right size to sell. Also I can't afford organic. I eat out of cans most days. :wink:
  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    It's not really a "debate" per say.
    It's people who eat normal conventional food from the grocery and don't trip or impose their ways on others.
    Then there's the smug people who swear by everything organic and think everyone would benefit eating like them. (In other words, they are better than you).
  • It's not really a "debate" per say.
    It's people who eat normal conventional food from the grocery and don't trip or impose their ways on others.
    Then there's the smug people who swear by everything organic and think everyone would benefit eating like them. (In other words, they are better than you).

    ^^ Yup.
  • Meerataila
    Meerataila Posts: 1,885 Member
    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.
  • MississippiMama87
    MississippiMama87 Posts: 204 Member
    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
    PapaChanoli Posts: 178 Member
    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
    wizzybeth Posts: 3,578 Member
    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
    wizzybeth Posts: 3,578 Member
    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
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    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
    kegrip917 Posts: 14
    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
    J72FIT Posts: 6,007 Member
    Some food for thought...

    http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4166
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    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
    JupeJones Posts: 107 Member
    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
    colibri23 Posts: 223 Member
    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