Organic...
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jenibethbu wrote: »I am fortunate enough to live in an agriculturally rich area. I grow my own veggies, raise my own chickens, and get milk and some meat from a local farm where I know no steroids, hormones, etc are used by the family. But, I can see where cost could seriously prohibit one's ability to shop organic! I sell chicken/duck eggs for $2 per dozen, but have seen them in grocery stores for $5+!!
Are you eggs organic? I raise my own eggs too, but they wouldn't qualify as organic because all their feed isn't organic.
My eggs are organic, as is their feed.
0 -
Well, yes, there were synthetics back when your grandparents ate too, but more importantly, you're taking advice from a time when half the plant had serious malnutrition trying to feed less than half the number of people we are trying to feed now?I try to buy organic as much as possible and when not possible I follow the clean 15 list. I figure my grandparents didn't eat foods smoothered in synthetic chemicals, why should I? I value local over organic during the summer though. I don't eat a lot of meat so I don't mind splurging on high quality grass fed meats when the craving strikes.
The EWG's clean 15 / dirty dozen list are bad claims:
http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2014/05/3-reasons-ewgs-dirty-dozen-is-still.html0 -
Sure.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Can you explain further?
Estimates are that to produce food, 85% of the energy used is growing it, and 15% is shipping it.
So now if you buy a local grown potato that takes 15% more energy to grow in your climate (like you don't live in the ideal Idaho), and you save 50% on transportation energy, what you've ended up with is 85%*1.15+15%*.5 = 105.25% energy used (5.25% more) in comparison to growing it in the ideal environment.0 -
I used to work on an organic farm. They were held to very high standards and NEVER used pesticides. You know how we got rid of these guys? Hand picked them off the plants and squished them!
I doubt that the big industrial farms touting the organic labels like Olivias and the like are going to be hand picking bugs off.
Buying from smaller local farms is always better but not always possible year round. The organic label you see in the supermarket may or may not be truly organic, since there is not much policing going on, and you can bet your bottom dollar that if pesticides are allowed (which they are, they just cannot be synthetic, they must be derived from natural sources) they will be for many of the items you see in the store.
It was actually a usda fully certified organic farm where we hand picked bugs. The guidelines for that label are stringent, not lenient like you are putting forth.
you mean theeeeeeeeeeeeese guidelines?
ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_16010 -
it depends on the specific types of foods.
The "Dirty Dozen" i almost always buy organic if it's an option. Otherwise i make sure i clean them in a vinegar bath.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »it depends on the specific types of foods.
The "Dirty Dozen" i almost always buy organic if it's an option. Otherwise i make sure i clean them in a vinegar bath.
EWG's Dirty Dozen again in this thread.
http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2014/05/3-reasons-ewgs-dirty-dozen-is-still.htmlThe methodology used to create the “Dirty Dozen” list does not appear to follow any established scientific procedures. Only one of the six indicators used by the EWG crudely considers the amount of pesticide residue detected on the various commodities, and that indicator fails to relate exposures to such residues with established health criteria. Another indicator considers the percentage of samples found to be positive for pesticide residues. The remaining four indicators seem related as all appear to focus upon the existence of residues of multiple pesticides (percent of samples with two or more pesticides, average number of pesticides found on a single sample, maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample, and total number of pesticides found on the commodity) which suggests that the commodity rankings are significantly skewed to reflect instances of multiple residues. While research has demonstrated that the toxicity of a single chemical may be modulated by the presence of another chemical, such effects still require exposure to the modulating chemical to be at a level high enough (above a threshold dose) to cause a biological effect. Results from this study strongly suggest that consumer exposures to the ten most common pesticides found on the “Dirty Dozen” commodities are several orders of magnitude below levels required to cause any biological effect. As a result, the potential for synergistic effects resulting from pesticide combinations is negligible, and the EWG methodology which skews rankings due to the presence of multiple residues is not justified.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »it depends on the specific types of foods.
The "Dirty Dozen" i almost always buy organic if it's an option. Otherwise i make sure i clean them in a vinegar bath.
EWG's Dirty Dozen again in this thread.
http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2014/05/3-reasons-ewgs-dirty-dozen-is-still.htmlThe methodology used to create the “Dirty Dozen” list does not appear to follow any established scientific procedures. Only one of the six indicators used by the EWG crudely considers the amount of pesticide residue detected on the various commodities, and that indicator fails to relate exposures to such residues with established health criteria. Another indicator considers the percentage of samples found to be positive for pesticide residues. The remaining four indicators seem related as all appear to focus upon the existence of residues of multiple pesticides (percent of samples with two or more pesticides, average number of pesticides found on a single sample, maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample, and total number of pesticides found on the commodity) which suggests that the commodity rankings are significantly skewed to reflect instances of multiple residues. While research has demonstrated that the toxicity of a single chemical may be modulated by the presence of another chemical, such effects still require exposure to the modulating chemical to be at a level high enough (above a threshold dose) to cause a biological effect. Results from this study strongly suggest that consumer exposures to the ten most common pesticides found on the “Dirty Dozen” commodities are several orders of magnitude below levels required to cause any biological effect. As a result, the potential for synergistic effects resulting from pesticide combinations is negligible, and the EWG methodology which skews rankings due to the presence of multiple residues is not justified.
I didn't say that eating said pesticides causes some kind of biological effect or it's a harmful amount. Just that i choose not to eat them. *shrug*
still interesting read.
0 -
I would love to grow my own veggies. I have been reading up on container gardening and gardening on small properties. However, our growing season is pretty short, and we even had frost in mid may. We had snow still at the end of April. It would be a nice supplement but I could never depend on it.0
-
I used to work on an organic farm. They were held to very high standards and NEVER used pesticides. You know how we got rid of these guys? Hand picked them off the plants and squished them!
I doubt that the big industrial farms touting the organic labels like Olivias and the like are going to be hand picking bugs off.
Buying from smaller local farms is always better but not always possible year round. The organic label you see in the supermarket may or may not be truly organic, since there is not much policing going on, and you can bet your bottom dollar that if pesticides are allowed (which they are, they just cannot be synthetic, they must be derived from natural sources) they will be for many of the items you see in the store.
It was actually a usda fully certified organic farm where we hand picked bugs. The guidelines for that label are stringent, not lenient like you are putting forth.
you mean theeeeeeeeeeeeese guidelines?
ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_1601
0 -
-
Charlie003 wrote: »
that's free fish bait...0 -
I had to go there with pic. Classic movie. But seriously start your own garden for organic vegs and fruit. Find the right type of plants that thrive best in your part of the world. Its great for many reasons.
1-Cost effective-Plants are inexpensive and produce lots.
2-Great way to get exercise. Tilling, weed pulling, raking etc...
3-Great for the environment.
4-Rewarding
0 -
mattyc772014 wrote: »I had to go there with pic. Classic movie. But seriously start your own garden for organic vegs and fruit. Find the right type of plants that thrive best in your part of the world. Its great for many reasons.
1-Cost effective-Plants are inexpensive and produce lots.
2-Great way to get exercise. Tilling, weed pulling, raking etc...
3-Great for the environment.
4-Rewarding
3...but what if your soil requires more watering than would be environmental friendly for the area in which you live? (not that it stops a lot of world agriculture regions from growing crops in otherwise arid or semiarid climates that require a lot of tilling and groundwater/irrigation water to be viable).0 -
@_John_ really.....lol0
-
Sure.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Can you explain further?
Estimates are that to produce food, 85% of the energy used is growing it, and 15% is shipping it.
So now if you buy a local grown potato that takes 15% more energy to grow in your climate (like you don't live in the ideal Idaho), and you save 50% on transportation energy, what you've ended up with is 85%*1.15+15%*.5 = 105.25% energy used (5.25% more) in comparison to growing it in the ideal environment.
That sounds like a lot of if's and generalizations. What are your sources? Is the amount of energy the same for small local farms as it is for large commerical farms. Is it the same in all areas? For all food?
I mean, I don't live in an area known for pototoes (commercially) but they grow well here. I can grow potatoes by doing nothing other than burying a few potatoes from last years harvest.0 -
I used to work on an organic farm. They were held to very high standards and NEVER used pesticides. You know how we got rid of these guys? Hand picked them off the plants and squished them!
I doubt that the big industrial farms touting the organic labels like Olivias and the like are going to be hand picking bugs off.
Buying from smaller local farms is always better but not always possible year round. The organic label you see in the supermarket may or may not be truly organic, since there is not much policing going on, and you can bet your bottom dollar that if pesticides are allowed (which they are, they just cannot be synthetic, they must be derived from natural sources) they will be for many of the items you see in the store.
It was actually a usda fully certified organic farm where we hand picked bugs. The guidelines for that label are stringent, not lenient like you are putting forth.
you mean theeeeeeeeeeeeese guidelines?
ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_1601
ETA: moar lulz0 -
mattyc772014 wrote: »
Now THAT'S a dirty dozen!!
Regarding the op, I'm not concerned in the least about organic - until I see scientific studies that show an organic fruit/vegetable has better nutrition than it's regularly produced counterpart, I refuse to pay the prices for organic.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sure.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Can you explain further?
Estimates are that to produce food, 85% of the energy used is growing it, and 15% is shipping it.
So now if you buy a local grown potato that takes 15% more energy to grow in your climate (like you don't live in the ideal Idaho), and you save 50% on transportation energy, what you've ended up with is 85%*1.15+15%*.5 = 105.25% energy used (5.25% more) in comparison to growing it in the ideal environment.
That sounds like a lot of if's and generalizations. What are your sources? Is the amount of energy the same for small local farms as it is for large commerical farms. Is it the same in all areas? For all food?
I mean, I don't live in an area known for pototoes (commercially) but they grow well here. I can grow potatoes by doing nothing other than burying a few potatoes from last years harvest.
There's a huge difference between you can pop in a good and get it to grow and it is the most economically efficient crop to grow in your area.
One of the biggest proofs is just in the price difference. If a crop can cost less when shipped from far away than grown locally, how much chance is there that it required more input to grow on top of the transit costs?
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/
I'm not sure why in a local versus shipped discussion the idea of a small farm versus a large farm is terribly germane, it seems more like trying to just muddy the discussion.0 -
I don't eat organic because it is actually not that great on a conservation level. Plus, there's the fact that organic farmers stand to gain large subsidies and tax breaks (more than the typical farmer) from the United States government for doing it, as if the markup for organic produce isn't enough to sustain them. I am not for this.0
-
DogRiverDude wrote: »This past weekend my brother-in-law raised an excellent point regarding the production of organic food... something I had never considered. In summary he stated...
"We live in a world that has people starving to death; generally speaking there's not enough land to produce the volume of food needed to feed the population. The production of Organic Food requires more land area to yield the same volume of NON-organic food therefore, one of two things (or combination thereof) must occur each time a consumer chooses 'Organic':
1) another person in our world goes hungry, and/or
2) additional land must be cleared to produce more organic food."
His logic is sound but sadly it's not something that "us" North Americans (or Europeans) consider when we're filling our carts at the grocery store.
My husband makes this point anytime anyone tries to argue for organic.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions