Organic...
Options
Replies
-
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.
Why irrational? If you admit we don't know either is safe, how can either decision be irrational? Money?0 -
Evidence can be weighed, and some evidence is weightier than others. Just because you, @Need2Exerc1se , do not regard the relative safety of commercial crops, doesn't mean it isn't so. Your arguments revert to the irrational. Predictably.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.
dis gai getsz it0 -
Evidence can be weighed, and some evidence is weightier than others. Just because you, @Need2Exerc1se , do not regard the relative safety of commercial crops, doesn't mean it isn't so. Your arguments revert to the irrational. Predictably.
?? I never said I don't think commercial crops are safe.0 -
Produce needs to judged by its quality and taste. Organic watermelon beats conventional for me and I've bought a lot of watermelon. But for bananas and strawberries it doesn't seem to make much difference so I buy mostly conventional.0
-
Elle_Bronwyn15 wrote: »I do only because I have an issue with pesticides...it gives me an upset stomach. But believe it or not a few weeks ago I bought some organic produce and got EXTREMELY sick from it, so I don't know that that was about...bacteria maybe?
Did you know that now some pesticides are also allowed ( and used ) in organic farming ?
0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »Produce needs to judged by its quality and taste. Organic watermelon beats conventional for me and I've bought a lot of watermelon. But for bananas and strawberries it doesn't seem to make much difference so I buy mostly conventional.
that is a beef I have with conventional produce. We expect it to look a certain way, and often organic can get away with not appearing as "ideal". And therefore it's just better to eat. I like broccoli MUCH better when it's not a hard and uniform like most conventional produce.
When I grow melons myself they never turn out pretty, but are much better than the more aesthetic store bought ones .
0 -
Elle_Bronwyn15 wrote: »I do only because I have an issue with pesticides...it gives me an upset stomach. But believe it or not a few weeks ago I bought some organic produce and got EXTREMELY sick from it, so I don't know that that was about...bacteria maybe?
Did you know that now some pesticides are also allowed ( and used ) in organic farming ?
lol "now"? they have always been allowed and used in organic farming. you can't grow without herbicides, pesticides, etc.
I have linked the list of federally-allowed pesticides/etc. for organic-certified farms at least twice in this thread already.0 -
Elle_Bronwyn15 wrote: »I do only because I have an issue with pesticides...it gives me an upset stomach. But believe it or not a few weeks ago I bought some organic produce and got EXTREMELY sick from it, so I don't know that that was about...bacteria maybe?
Did you know that now some pesticides are also allowed ( and used ) in organic farming ?
lol "now"? they have always been allowed and used in organic farming. you can't grow without herbicides, pesticides, etc.
I have linked the list of federally-allowed pesticides/etc. for organic-certified farms at least twice in this thread already.
and I've linked a peer reviewed article that looked into the actual levels of pesticides on a variety of foods and compared those levels to no observed adverse effect levels for eating those food everyday.
The actual measurable levels of these "chemicals" in the highest avg. concentration on foods tested is somewhere at most 1/1000000th of what MIGHT cause an actual adverse response according to the lit.0 -
Elle_Bronwyn15 wrote: »I do only because I have an issue with pesticides...it gives me an upset stomach. But believe it or not a few weeks ago I bought some organic produce and got EXTREMELY sick from it, so I don't know that that was about...bacteria maybe?
Did you know that now some pesticides are also allowed ( and used ) in organic farming ?
lol "now"? they have always been allowed and used in organic farming. you can't grow without herbicides, pesticides, etc.
I have linked the list of federally-allowed pesticides/etc. for organic-certified farms at least twice in this thread already.
and I've linked a peer reviewed article that looked into the actual levels of pesticides on a variety of foods and compared those levels to no observed adverse effect levels for eating those food everyday.
The actual measurable levels of these "chemicals" in the highest avg. concentration on foods tested is somewhere at most 1/1000000th of what MIGHT cause an actual adverse response according to the lit.
exactly
both organic and "big ag" use pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides
neither of them deliver pesticide-laden food to your table
both of them are for-profit industries
and organic costs the consumer more for no difference in the end product0 -
Elle_Bronwyn15 wrote: »I do only because I have an issue with pesticides...it gives me an upset stomach. But believe it or not a few weeks ago I bought some organic produce and got EXTREMELY sick from it, so I don't know that that was about...bacteria maybe?
Did you know that now some pesticides are also allowed ( and used ) in organic farming ?
lol "now"? they have always been allowed and used in organic farming. you can't grow without herbicides, pesticides, etc.
I have linked the list of federally-allowed pesticides/etc. for organic-certified farms at least twice in this thread already.
and I've linked a peer reviewed article that looked into the actual levels of pesticides on a variety of foods and compared those levels to no observed adverse effect levels for eating those food everyday.
The actual measurable levels of these "chemicals" in the highest avg. concentration on foods tested is somewhere at most 1/1000000th of what MIGHT cause an actual adverse response according to the lit.
exactly
both organic and "big ag" use pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides
neither of them deliver pesticide-laden food to your table
both of them are for-profit industries
and organic costs the consumer more for no difference in the end product
my posts may not make this clear, but my goal here is to reassure people that they do not have to feel "guilt" or doubt the nutrition/safety of their food if they choose not to eat organic.
THAT's the message that I don't particularly care for in many of these threads and will argue with until I'm blue in the face. I think it's a crummy message to give to people on a public forum.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Why irrational? If you admit we don't know either is safe, how can either decision be irrational? Money?
Irrational because there is no logical reason to put more trust in one vs any of the others. A rational choice would be to distrust all equally because safety can never be proven, or to trust all equally because while safety can never be proven, there's no current evidence of a problem despite testing.
Actually, I suspect there is more research on the chemicals as opposed to the apple. If that's the case, it'd also be rational to distrust the apple more than the chemical based on the relative lack of research if the mindset is to distrust until safety is proven.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Why irrational? If you admit we don't know either is safe, how can either decision be irrational? Money?
Irrational because there is no logical reason to put more trust in one vs any of the others. A rational choice would be to distrust all equally because safety can never be proven, or to trust all equally because while safety can never be proven, there's no current evidence of a problem despite testing.
Actually, I suspect there is more research on the chemicals as opposed to the apple. If that's the case, it'd also be rational to distrust the apple more than the chemical based on the relative lack of research if the mindset is to distrust until safety is proven.
It is fallacious thinking. It uses the natural fallacy to assume the 'natural' apple is safer than the one that uses tested chemicals.0 -
Elle_Bronwyn15 wrote: »I do only because I have an issue with pesticides...it gives me an upset stomach. But believe it or not a few weeks ago I bought some organic produce and got EXTREMELY sick from it, so I don't know that that was about...bacteria maybe?
Did you know that now some pesticides are also allowed ( and used ) in organic farming ?
lol "now"? they have always been allowed and used in organic farming. you can't grow without herbicides, pesticides, etc.
I have linked the list of federally-allowed pesticides/etc. for organic-certified farms at least twice in this thread already.
and I've linked a peer reviewed article that looked into the actual levels of pesticides on a variety of foods and compared those levels to no observed adverse effect levels for eating those food everyday.
The actual measurable levels of these "chemicals" in the highest avg. concentration on foods tested is somewhere at most 1/1000000th of what MIGHT cause an actual adverse response according to the lit.
exactly
both organic and "big ag" use pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides
neither of them deliver pesticide-laden food to your table
both of them are for-profit industries
and organic costs the consumer more for no difference in the end product
my posts may not make this clear, but my goal here is to reassure people that they do not have to feel "guilt" or doubt the nutrition/safety of their food if they choose not to eat organic.
THAT's the message that I don't particularly care for in many of these threads and will argue with until I'm blue in the face. I think it's a crummy message to give to people on a public forum.
yes, we seem to be in agreement0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Why irrational? If you admit we don't know either is safe, how can either decision be irrational? Money?
Irrational because there is no logical reason to put more trust in one vs any of the others. A rational choice would be to distrust all equally because safety can never be proven, or to trust all equally because while safety can never be proven, there's no current evidence of a problem despite testing.
Actually, I suspect there is more research on the chemicals as opposed to the apple. If that's the case, it'd also be rational to distrust the apple more than the chemical based on the relative lack of research if the mindset is to distrust until safety is proven.
No, I disagree. It's not illogical to pick a side to trust when there is insufficient evidence to prove either side. Without concrete proof, logic tells us to rely on something else to make a decision. And the something else could be any number of things, including simply "going with your gut".0 -
While viewed as less toxic to humans, a number of pesticides are actually toxic to insects. But, who would have guessed that a pesticide kills pests?
Seems logical right? The unfortunate side of the story is insects are vital, honeybees for example. The most promising research on the honeybee collapse shows a direct link to use of sub-lethal neonicotinoids. A team of scientists (Goulson, journal of Science) found that multiplying effects from use of this "safe" pesticide and a parasitic mite, were the keys to colony collapse. The EPA disagreed with Goulson's findings after performing their own research demonstrating "field level" doses of specific sub-lethal neonicotinoids had no negative impact over a 2-year period, yet, in the EPA's own study, higher doses did negatively impact colonies and those doses promptly reduced colonies by the same rate we're seeing in the wild.
It's interesting that the EPA's own study showed the same colony collapse, yet their "spin" was contrary to the actual study findings. This is a problem with just Googling for, and reading research summaries, or abstracts, or worse, some inept journalist's report. To truly understand research, you have to read the entire paper.
A follow up study (Barron) shows exactly how the colony collapse happens starting with younger bees foraging much earlier in life due to lack of production from older (sick) bees in the colony.
Bee colony collapse is estimated to be 1 in 3 colonies per year. Other insects now impacted include monarch butterflies with an estimated 90% loss. This is the definition of mass-extinction.
Under organic standards, a limited number of pesticides " may only be used when the provisions set forth in §205.206(a) through (d) prove insufficient to prevent or control the target pest. " The steps the producer must take before using approved pesticides are actually quite lengthy and the reporting and record keeping systems are stringent. (see also 205.201)
However, under non-organic practice, the number of pesticides available is in the 1,000's including a number of sub-lethal neonicotinoids.
What else is available to non-organic growers? Sewage sludge.
Sewage sludge? no thanks, I'll pass.
With my background and experience in this area, I choose organic. But, I'm also selective about producers. Not all "organic" is equal.0 -
You listed two species that haven't even gone extinct yet, and are saying that's the definition of mass-extinction? Really? That is the definition of hyperbole. Mass-extinction is a fairly specific thing, referring to extinction of multiple species. Interestingly, we do seem to be in the beginning of mass-extinction event, one probably largely having to do with carbon footprints - which interestingly is something conventional tends to do well at reducing. Huhm.ScreeField wrote: »This is the definition of mass-extinction.
Wait, you're saying having access to and choice of MORE pesticide options is a bad thing? The more ways you have to skin a cat, usually the better. The reporting isn't going to do that much. Farmers don't use pesticides for giggles, they do it to produce more for less cost. They aren't just using them because they think they might run into pests.ScreeField wrote: »Under organic standards, a limited number of pesticides " may only be used when the provisions set forth in §205.206(a) through (d) prove insufficient to prevent or control the target pest. " The steps the producer must take before using approved pesticides are actually quite lengthy and the reporting and record keeping systems are stringent. (see also 205.201)
However, under non-organic practice, the number of pesticides available is in the 1,000's including a number of sub-lethal neonicotinoids.
Because organic growers can't use all natural manure? Of the few methods that claim to reach conventional output like Rodale, they use massive amounts of it - twice the effective nitrogen amount of conventional growing.ScreeField wrote: »What else is available to non-organic growers? Sewage sludge.
Sewage sludge? no thanks, I'll pass.
With my background and experience in this area, I choose organic. But, I'm also selective about producers. Not all "organic" is equal.0 -
.
Organic producers must not use Sewage sludge nor may they use composted animal waste that contains synthetic substances. They are however able to use "all natural manure".
Per Section 205.203:
(e) The producer must not use:
(1) Any fertilizer or composted plant and animal material that contains a synthetic substance not included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production;
(2) Sewage sludge (biosolids) as defined in 40 CFR part 503
Sewage sludge contains a number of synthetic substances due to the pharmaceuticals consumed by humans. When you ingest pharmaceuticals, those chemicals and hormones exit your body and typically end up in the sewer (and ultimately, in sewage sludge). Estrogen is a hormone commonly found in sludge.
Although, I don't recall the use of hyperbole being banned, a generally accepted definition of mass extinction is "abrupt decline of the diversity and the population of organisms".0 -
Yeah, that's what my statement meant. They use animal derived fertilizers, often in great amounts. Hence me directly stating the Rodale institute uses great amounts of it. I'm saying animal fertilizer isn't a huge improvement over biosludge. FYI, estrogen is a hormone commonly found in mammalian bodies, not sure what your point about it is. As far as I was aware, you can find sex hormones in the urine of plenty of mammals, finding testosterone in dog urine was the original basis for anabolic steroids.ScreeField wrote: ».
Organic producers must not use Sewage sludge nor may they use composted animal waste that contains synthetic substances. And, you are misinformed, they are able to use "all natural manure". Perhaps a thorough read and understanding of the organic standards would help with basic assumptions.
Per Section 205.203:
(e) The producer must not use:
(1) Any fertilizer or composted plant and animal material that contains a synthetic substance not included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production;
(2) Sewage sludge (biosolids) as defined in 40 CFR part 503
Sewage sludge contains a number of synthetic substances due to the pharmaceuticals consumed by humans. When you ingest pharmaceuticals, those chemicals and hormones exit your body and typically end up in the sewer (and ultimately, in sewage sludge). Estrogen is a hormone commonly found in sludge.
Although, I don't recall the use of hyperbole being banned, a generally accepted definition of mass extinction is "abrupt decline of the diversity and the population of organisms".
And I don't recall claiming hyperbole was banned. It is a bad use of technical term that actually has a meaning. Two species dropping in numbers, without actually going extinct, isn't even the cusp of a mass extinction event. In extinction events, things go extinct.0 -
organic is lame
the fact that this thread is still going is lame
get a room you two
-1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions