Organic...
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »How about trusting natural mushrooms growing in the forest? Or wild gourds? Is the relative trust misplaced?
Yes, yes, very amusing. Because trusting that food grown without added chemicals may be safer than that grown without is exactly the same as skipping through the forest eating every plant in site.
Why does added chemicals sound like an echo of the term "added sugars" to me?
IDK, because you want it to??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tAi46bv1Z4 0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?
and through all this food producers are on the sidelines laughing at which way we're going to choose to pay the same companies...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?
and through all this food producers are on the sidelines laughing at which way we're going to choose to pay the same companies...
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?
and through all this food producers are on the sidelines laughing at which way we're going to choose to pay the same companies...
the biggest joke is how all of those products taste
I went all derp-fest organic and non-GMO for a while and it's like choking down *kitten*-flavored cardboard0 -
It's a pretty good racket if you can charge more for a food you don't even have to make it taste good, nor even improve the macros and micros on.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?
and through all this food producers are on the sidelines laughing at which way we're going to choose to pay the same companies...
the biggest joke is how all of those products taste
I went all derp-fest organic and non-GMO for a while and it's like choking down *kitten*-flavored cardboard0 -
It's a pretty good racket if you can charge more for a food you don't even have to make it taste good, nor even improve the macros and micros on.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?
and through all this food producers are on the sidelines laughing at which way we're going to choose to pay the same companies...
the biggest joke is how all of those products taste
I went all derp-fest organic and non-GMO for a while and it's like choking down *kitten*-flavored cardboard
Strawberries are one of my favorite fruits, and every year there's a certain variety that is my favorite. It's usually sold by Driskolls here. It doesn't matter if it's organic or not, it's the variety that makes the difference. I'm not paying 1.50-3.00 more per pound for an organic stamp on the same food.
0 -
It's a pretty good racket if you can charge more for a food you don't even have to make it taste good, nor even improve the macros and micros on.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?
and through all this food producers are on the sidelines laughing at which way we're going to choose to pay the same companies...
the biggest joke is how all of those products taste
I went all derp-fest organic and non-GMO for a while and it's like choking down *kitten*-flavored cardboard
it really is quite impressive when you put it that way0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
It's not the engineering, it's the breeding.0
-
The chemicals that are used in conventional farming go in to the ground water. How is it filtered out in organic farming irrigation? Pollutants go into the air and are in rain. How is that taken out when it rains on "organic" crops? I live next to an apple orchard. Drift occurs when they are spraying the apples. Is it possible to have any meats, poultry, fruit or vegetables that are truly organic? I am not convinced.0
-
snowflake930 wrote: »The chemicals that are used in conventional farming go in to the ground water. How is it filtered out in organic farming irrigation? Pollutants go into the air and are in rain. How is that taken out when it rains on "organic" crops? I live next to an apple orchard. Drift occurs when they are spraying the apples. Is it possible to have any meats, poultry, fruit or vegetables that are truly organic? I am not convinced.
I doubt it is possible to have 100% organic anything in today's world. I took the OP's question to be about commercial non-organic food vs. commercial organic produce.0 -
This kind of commentary tends to show the concept of organic is about some kind of perceived purity than it is about any kind of practical benefit.snowflake930 wrote: »The chemicals that are used in conventional farming go in to the ground water. How is it filtered out in organic farming irrigation? Pollutants go into the air and are in rain. How is that taken out when it rains on "organic" crops? I live next to an apple orchard. Drift occurs when they are spraying the apples. Is it possible to have any meats, poultry, fruit or vegetables that are truly organic? I am not convinced.0 -
This kind of commentary tends to show the concept of organic is about some kind of perceived purity than it is about any kind of practical benefit.snowflake930 wrote: »The chemicals that are used in conventional farming go in to the ground water. How is it filtered out in organic farming irrigation? Pollutants go into the air and are in rain. How is that taken out when it rains on "organic" crops? I live next to an apple orchard. Drift occurs when they are spraying the apples. Is it possible to have any meats, poultry, fruit or vegetables that are truly organic? I am not convinced.
Or the lesser of two evils.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This kind of commentary tends to show the concept of organic is about some kind of perceived purity than it is about any kind of practical benefit.snowflake930 wrote: »The chemicals that are used in conventional farming go in to the ground water. How is it filtered out in organic farming irrigation? Pollutants go into the air and are in rain. How is that taken out when it rains on "organic" crops? I live next to an apple orchard. Drift occurs when they are spraying the apples. Is it possible to have any meats, poultry, fruit or vegetables that are truly organic? I am not convinced.
Or the lesser of two evils.
or a marketing ploy.
0 -
Religious style moralization of food intensifies.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
This kind of commentary tends to show the concept of organic is about some kind of perceived purity than it is about any kind of practical benefit.snowflake930 wrote: »The chemicals that are used in conventional farming go in to the ground water. How is it filtered out in organic farming irrigation? Pollutants go into the air and are in rain. How is that taken out when it rains on "organic" crops? I live next to an apple orchard. Drift occurs when they are spraying the apples. Is it possible to have any meats, poultry, fruit or vegetables that are truly organic? I am not convinced.
Or the lesser of two evils.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?
Misplaced was not quite the right word - irrational, or arbitrary would have been a better fit. There's no reason to trust one over the other except for a 'feeling'.
Which is fine. People pay more for things based solely on feelings all the time. That's what marketing takes advantage of, after all.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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions