Organic...
Replies
-
explosivedonut wrote: »ITT: Appeal to nature fallacy.
To people claiming that grocery store organic tastes better/is more nutritional (I am keeping it separate from local crops, I think that is a totally different argument), studies have been done that say that little to no difference can be found. http://foodscience.missouri.edu/news/organic-milk.php http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/680.full and http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html
What happens most often is that people get tricked into thinking more expensive = better tasting. Look at wine, if you put a cheap wine into an expensive bottle it will be rated higher than that same wine in a cheaper looking bottle. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/you-are-not-so-smart-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/
Organic is a marketing term to make you buy more expensive food for no practical reason. Much like the term "all natural" it serves no purpose for most people.
This is assuming that people only buy organic for taste. Many, maybe even most, eat organic because they believe it either is or could be better for their health or the environment.0 -
If you read my post and the articles I linked, you would see that studies have shown that nutritionally they are the same. As for the environment, I think the "mega farms" we have, organic or otherwise, are probably not great for our environment. Are non-organic farms worse? I don't know, I would like to see some scientific literature on that.0
-
Plants grown in the ideal soil don't need much more than weeding and water.
Tell that to the potato beetle. We've got great vegetable growing soil around here but our community plot is also overrun by mice, rabbits, transients, and the potato beetle. Natural selection takes no prisoners, and there's a vital struggle going on both sides. I take the beetle out on sight, but it's a long growing season and I'm not out there all day.
I deal with my community garden losses by calling them "donations".
You sure took my sentence out of context. I was talking about plants not needing chemicals...
Re your garden: Keep manually removing the beetles. Straw mulch is the best for potatoes and planting them near beans hampers the emergence of more larvae.0 -
Plants grown in the ideal soil don't need much more than weeding and water.
Tell that to the potato beetle. We've got great vegetable growing soil around here but our community plot is also overrun by mice, rabbits, transients, and the potato beetle. Natural selection takes no prisoners, and there's a vital struggle going on both sides. I take the beetle out on sight, but it's a long growing season and I'm not out there all day.
I deal with my community garden losses by calling them "donations".
You sure took my sentence out of context. I was talking about plants not needing chemicals...
Re your garden: Keep manually removing the beetles. Straw mulch is the best for potatoes and planting them near beans hampers the emergence of more larvae.
I can guarantee that all the manual picking, straw, and beans won't deter the onslaught of the beetle. Hence the need for chemicals. Water's a chemical too and you don't doubt it's efficacy.0 -
explosivedonut wrote: »If you read my post and the articles I linked, you would see that studies have shown that nutritionally they are the same. As for the environment, I think the "mega farms" we have, organic or otherwise, are probably not great for our environment. Are non-organic farms worse? I don't know, I would like to see some scientific literature on that.
Again, I don't think many people think they are more nutritious. They think the pesticide residue is, or may be, harmful.0 -
Really? Cause looking at this thread, a lot of people are talking about taste or nutrition.0
-
Plants grown in the ideal soil don't need much more than weeding and water.
Tell that to the potato beetle. We've got great vegetable growing soil around here but our community plot is also overrun by mice, rabbits, transients, and the potato beetle. Natural selection takes no prisoners, and there's a vital struggle going on both sides. I take the beetle out on sight, but it's a long growing season and I'm not out there all day.
I deal with my community garden losses by calling them "donations".
You sure took my sentence out of context. I was talking about plants not needing chemicals...
Re your garden: Keep manually removing the beetles. Straw mulch is the best for potatoes and planting them near beans hampers the emergence of more larvae.
I can guarantee that all the manual picking, straw, and beans won't deter the onslaught of the beetle. Hence the need for chemicals. Water's a chemical too and you don't doubt it's efficacy.
I farmed organically on a commercial farm in humid central virginia, with every known garden pest, fungus, and disease. Grew beautiful veggies without synthetic chemicals. I'm sure the chemical companies would love for you to think you need their products as much as water. Good luck with your community plot. I'm done with this thread.0 -
explosivedonut wrote: »Really? Cause looking at this thread, a lot of people are talking about taste or nutrition.
I think a bit of that discussion in this thread was more about local than organic. But yes, there are people who say they can taste the difference.
ETA: I was reading through your links posted above, but I didn't see any data on taste preferences.0 -
punkrockgoth wrote: »I strongly feel that the organic fair trade non GMO buy local movement is fueled by ignorance, bulls*&t propoganda and first world problems. It's a social construct meant to tell other people that you think you're better than them.
lol +10 -
OP's question was "Do you think eating organic is important?" I would say mostly yes because I wish to ingest as little pesticides and chemicals as possible, FDA rated safe or otherwise. That being said, it is a personal choice and no one should try to impose their opinions on others.
I subscribe to the theory that you should eat as well as you can afford and, for me, that usually includes organic produce. It doesn't make me feel that I'm better than others because I do, it makes me feel better about what I'm putting into my body. Not everyone can afford the higher prices of organic foods, including me. There are times I just refuse to pay $8.50 lb for asparagus or $5.00+ lb for grapes. In that case I will choose less expensive items. When on sale, sometimes the organic items are actually cheaper, so it's good to pay attention.
I didn't read this entire thread so not sure if others have mentioned the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen list. Here's a list of the pesticide loads in food and which have more or less.
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
0 -
RaeBeeBaby wrote: »OP's question was "Do you think eating organic is important?" I would say mostly yes because I wish to ingest as little pesticides and chemicals as possible, FDA rated safe or otherwise. That being said, it is a personal choice and no one should try to impose their opinions on others.
I subscribe to the theory that you should eat as well as you can afford and, for me, that usually includes organic produce. It doesn't make me feel that I'm better than others because I do, it makes me feel better about what I'm putting into my body. Not everyone can afford the higher prices of organic foods, including me. There are times I just refuse to pay $8.50 lb for asparagus or $5.00+ lb for grapes. In that case I will choose less expensive items. When on sale, sometimes the organic items are actually cheaper, so it's good to pay attention.
I didn't read this entire thread so not sure if others have mentioned the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen list. Here's a list of the pesticide loads in food and which have more or less.
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
don't organic farming practices use greater quantities of pesticides...?0 -
RaeBeeBaby wrote: »OP's question was "Do you think eating organic is important?" I would say mostly yes because I wish to ingest as little pesticides and chemicals as possible, FDA rated safe or otherwise. That being said, it is a personal choice and no one should try to impose their opinions on others.
I subscribe to the theory that you should eat as well as you can afford and, for me, that usually includes organic produce. It doesn't make me feel that I'm better than others because I do, it makes me feel better about what I'm putting into my body. Not everyone can afford the higher prices of organic foods, including me. There are times I just refuse to pay $8.50 lb for asparagus or $5.00+ lb for grapes. In that case I will choose less expensive items. When on sale, sometimes the organic items are actually cheaper, so it's good to pay attention.
I didn't read this entire thread so not sure if others have mentioned the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen list. Here's a list of the pesticide loads in food and which have more or less.
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
don't organic farming practices use greater quantities of pesticides...?
I've never heard that. Do you mean quantities as in volume of individual pesticides, or as in number of different pesticides?0 -
punkrockgoth wrote: »I strongly feel that the organic fair trade non GMO buy local movement is fueled by ignorance, bulls*&t propoganda and first world problems. It's a social construct meant to tell other people that you think you're better than them.
lol +1
lol +2
0 -
punkrockgoth wrote: »I strongly feel that the organic fair trade non GMO buy local movement is fueled by ignorance, bulls*&t propoganda and first world problems. It's a social construct meant to tell other people that you think you're better than them.
*swoon*0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »I strongly feel that the organic fair trade non GMO buy local movement is fueled by ignorance, bulls*&t propoganda and first world problems. It's a social construct meant to tell other people that you think you're better than them.
This sounds a bit paranoid. Do you really think anyone chooses or suggests organic eating to belittle you?
Nice implied ad hominem framing (not to mention, possibly ableism).
Look up Veblen Goods, organic is a great example of it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »RaeBeeBaby wrote: »OP's question was "Do you think eating organic is important?" I would say mostly yes because I wish to ingest as little pesticides and chemicals as possible, FDA rated safe or otherwise. That being said, it is a personal choice and no one should try to impose their opinions on others.
I subscribe to the theory that you should eat as well as you can afford and, for me, that usually includes organic produce. It doesn't make me feel that I'm better than others because I do, it makes me feel better about what I'm putting into my body. Not everyone can afford the higher prices of organic foods, including me. There are times I just refuse to pay $8.50 lb for asparagus or $5.00+ lb for grapes. In that case I will choose less expensive items. When on sale, sometimes the organic items are actually cheaper, so it's good to pay attention.
I didn't read this entire thread so not sure if others have mentioned the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen list. Here's a list of the pesticide loads in food and which have more or less.
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
don't organic farming practices use greater quantities of pesticides...?
I've never heard that. Do you mean quantities as in volume of individual pesticides, or as in number of different pesticides?
volume, not number0 -
It's not at the top of my list. It's very low actually. I don't expect or even strive for perfection. I just want to live healthy and I can do this without worrying about what's organic and not organic. I don't have hundreds of dollars to waste, either. That plays a big part.
0 -
More specifically, organic has a tendency to use more pesticides per pound of production if you weight the pesticide based on the LD50 or reference dose.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »RaeBeeBaby wrote: »OP's question was "Do you think eating organic is important?" I would say mostly yes because I wish to ingest as little pesticides and chemicals as possible, FDA rated safe or otherwise. That being said, it is a personal choice and no one should try to impose their opinions on others.
I subscribe to the theory that you should eat as well as you can afford and, for me, that usually includes organic produce. It doesn't make me feel that I'm better than others because I do, it makes me feel better about what I'm putting into my body. Not everyone can afford the higher prices of organic foods, including me. There are times I just refuse to pay $8.50 lb for asparagus or $5.00+ lb for grapes. In that case I will choose less expensive items. When on sale, sometimes the organic items are actually cheaper, so it's good to pay attention.
I didn't read this entire thread so not sure if others have mentioned the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen list. Here's a list of the pesticide loads in food and which have more or less.
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
don't organic farming practices use greater quantities of pesticides...?
I've never heard that. Do you mean quantities as in volume of individual pesticides, or as in number of different pesticides?
volume, not number
0 -
Most of my veggies I KNOW FOR SURE are pesticide free. They come from my garden. And I freeze as many as I can for Winter. They taste better. When they are out, I don't buy organic. I could never afford it.0
-
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »I strongly feel that the organic fair trade non GMO buy local movement is fueled by ignorance, bulls*&t propoganda and first world problems. It's a social construct meant to tell other people that you think you're better than them.
This sounds a bit paranoid. Do you really think anyone chooses or suggests organic eating to belittle you?
Nice implied ad hominem framing (not to mention, possibly ableism).
Look up Veblen Goods, organic is a great example of it.
Nice use to the dictionary.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »RaeBeeBaby wrote: »OP's question was "Do you think eating organic is important?" I would say mostly yes because I wish to ingest as little pesticides and chemicals as possible, FDA rated safe or otherwise. That being said, it is a personal choice and no one should try to impose their opinions on others.
I subscribe to the theory that you should eat as well as you can afford and, for me, that usually includes organic produce. It doesn't make me feel that I'm better than others because I do, it makes me feel better about what I'm putting into my body. Not everyone can afford the higher prices of organic foods, including me. There are times I just refuse to pay $8.50 lb for asparagus or $5.00+ lb for grapes. In that case I will choose less expensive items. When on sale, sometimes the organic items are actually cheaper, so it's good to pay attention.
I didn't read this entire thread so not sure if others have mentioned the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen list. Here's a list of the pesticide loads in food and which have more or less.
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
don't organic farming practices use greater quantities of pesticides...?
I've never heard that. Do you mean quantities as in volume of individual pesticides, or as in number of different pesticides?
volume, not number
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.0 -
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
and that recent peer reviewed paper I linked earlier shows how low the exposure is to pesticide residues even in the "dirty dozen".
Anyone eating corn or peanuts eats a natural substance that is probably orders of magnitude more significant than pesticides: aflatoxin B1.0 -
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
and that recent peer reviewed paper I linked earlier shows how low the exposure is to pesticides resides even in the "dirty dozen".
Anyone eating corn or peanuts eats a natural substance that is probably orders of magnitude more significant than pesticides: aflatoxin B1.
Yeah, but good luck reducing decent, peer reviewed research from high impact journals into simple soundbites.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »RaeBeeBaby wrote: »OP's question was "Do you think eating organic is important?" I would say mostly yes because I wish to ingest as little pesticides and chemicals as possible, FDA rated safe or otherwise. That being said, it is a personal choice and no one should try to impose their opinions on others.
I subscribe to the theory that you should eat as well as you can afford and, for me, that usually includes organic produce. It doesn't make me feel that I'm better than others because I do, it makes me feel better about what I'm putting into my body. Not everyone can afford the higher prices of organic foods, including me. There are times I just refuse to pay $8.50 lb for asparagus or $5.00+ lb for grapes. In that case I will choose less expensive items. When on sale, sometimes the organic items are actually cheaper, so it's good to pay attention.
I didn't read this entire thread so not sure if others have mentioned the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen list. Here's a list of the pesticide loads in food and which have more or less.
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
don't organic farming practices use greater quantities of pesticides...?
I've never heard that. Do you mean quantities as in volume of individual pesticides, or as in number of different pesticides?
volume, not number
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
this...seems like something where I'm going to need one or more citations...
my bad if you've already linked them in here0 -
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
and that recent peer reviewed paper I linked earlier shows how low the exposure is to pesticides resides even in the "dirty dozen".
Anyone eating corn or peanuts eats a natural substance that is probably orders of magnitude more significant than pesticides: aflatoxin B1.
So? We don't get to pick and choose what substances are found naturally in food. We can, to some extent, choose what man added to our food.0 -
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
and that recent peer reviewed paper I linked earlier shows how low the exposure is to pesticides resides even in the "dirty dozen".
Anyone eating corn or peanuts eats a natural substance that is probably orders of magnitude more significant than pesticides: aflatoxin B1.
Yeah, but good luck reducing decent, peer reviewed research from high impact journals into simple soundbites.
For her project a rotation student in our lab measured aflatoxin B1 levels in a variety of peanut butter available in our area. Range was organic to natural to commercial.
There was no real trend, and ALL were below the allowable 20 ppb, but the "worst" was a fully organic PB and the organics were higher on average (but below statistical significance).
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »RaeBeeBaby wrote: »OP's question was "Do you think eating organic is important?" I would say mostly yes because I wish to ingest as little pesticides and chemicals as possible, FDA rated safe or otherwise. That being said, it is a personal choice and no one should try to impose their opinions on others.
I subscribe to the theory that you should eat as well as you can afford and, for me, that usually includes organic produce. It doesn't make me feel that I'm better than others because I do, it makes me feel better about what I'm putting into my body. Not everyone can afford the higher prices of organic foods, including me. There are times I just refuse to pay $8.50 lb for asparagus or $5.00+ lb for grapes. In that case I will choose less expensive items. When on sale, sometimes the organic items are actually cheaper, so it's good to pay attention.
I didn't read this entire thread so not sure if others have mentioned the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen list. Here's a list of the pesticide loads in food and which have more or less.
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
don't organic farming practices use greater quantities of pesticides...?
I've never heard that. Do you mean quantities as in volume of individual pesticides, or as in number of different pesticides?
volume, not number
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
this...seems like something where I'm going to need one or more citations...
my bad if you've already linked them in here
The link to the EWG site (organization that publishes the Dirty Dozen / Clean Fifteen list) is in this thread, so you can see it if you hit 'show previous quotes'. The site has info on how they compile the list.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
and that recent peer reviewed paper I linked earlier shows how low the exposure is to pesticides resides even in the "dirty dozen".
Anyone eating corn or peanuts eats a natural substance that is probably orders of magnitude more significant than pesticides: aflatoxin B1.
So? We don't get to pick and choose what substances are found naturally in food. We can, to some extent, choose what man added to our food.
The difference is, you're worried about a paper cut while a bear is charging you. You'll see health effects from B1 in your food faster than you will most almost any synthetic pesticide, so the synthetic pesticide makes no sense to worry about, you already have a lower threshold to avoid reaching if you're avoiding things for your health.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »RaeBeeBaby wrote: »OP's question was "Do you think eating organic is important?" I would say mostly yes because I wish to ingest as little pesticides and chemicals as possible, FDA rated safe or otherwise. That being said, it is a personal choice and no one should try to impose their opinions on others.
I subscribe to the theory that you should eat as well as you can afford and, for me, that usually includes organic produce. It doesn't make me feel that I'm better than others because I do, it makes me feel better about what I'm putting into my body. Not everyone can afford the higher prices of organic foods, including me. There are times I just refuse to pay $8.50 lb for asparagus or $5.00+ lb for grapes. In that case I will choose less expensive items. When on sale, sometimes the organic items are actually cheaper, so it's good to pay attention.
I didn't read this entire thread so not sure if others have mentioned the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen list. Here's a list of the pesticide loads in food and which have more or less.
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
don't organic farming practices use greater quantities of pesticides...?
I've never heard that. Do you mean quantities as in volume of individual pesticides, or as in number of different pesticides?
volume, not number
Then that seems probable to me. Many organic pesticides break down quickly and so must be reapplied more often, making the volume used higher. But the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen is not about volume of pesticides used, it's about residue remaining on the food presented for consumption.
this...seems like something where I'm going to need one or more citations...
my bad if you've already linked them in here
The link to the EWG site (organization that publishes the Dirty Dozen / Clean Fifteen list) is in this thread, so you can see it if you hit 'show previous quotes'. The site has info on how they compile the list.
There's also a link in this thread that shows there is no real, rational, scientific basis for how they compile the list.
In other words
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions