Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do you think there is any nutritional advantage to eating organic foods to justify the higher cost?
Replies
-
No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO.
Two points, what outcomes do you refer to when you say there's no scientific evidence? Again in the UK context whilst nutritional differences are marginal the organic system encompasses quit a lot more.
And organic <> anti-GMO. Each have a place in the market.
0 -
I buy organic where I can tell a difference in quality. Eggs, some cheese, some produce. I use to only buy organic milk because it blows regular milk out of the water, but I've since discovered Fairlife which isn't technically organic, but is phenomenal.
Anti-GMO nonsense is the same bucket as anti-vaccine and climate change denial nonsense. Anti-science hokem peddled for marketing purposes or to force false ideologies.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »It's all marketing and advertising, but fear is the greatest salesman known to man.
No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO, but that doesn't stop those peddling this from making a fortune off of the ignorant. Fools and their money are soon parted.
That's what they said about cigarettes.
No - that's what "I'm not a doctor, but play one on TV" personalities said about cigarettes.
Don't conflate science with marketing and advertising.
Actually it's what the tobacco industry told us and the courts. Don't conflate history with dogma.5 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »It's all marketing and advertising, but fear is the greatest salesman known to man.
No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO, but that doesn't stop those peddling this from making a fortune off of the ignorant. Fools and their money are soon parted.
That's what they said about cigarettes.
Are we going to hear a GMO conspiracy theory now? Let me grab some popcorn.
You're the one who can read the future, apparently. You tell me. Share the popcorn, but not too much butter on mine please.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »It's all marketing and advertising, but fear is the greatest salesman known to man.
No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO, but that doesn't stop those peddling this from making a fortune off of the ignorant. Fools and their money are soon parted.
That's what they said about cigarettes.
No - that's what "I'm not a doctor, but play one on TV" personalities said about cigarettes.
Don't conflate science with marketing and advertising.
Actually it's what the tobacco industry told us and the courts. Don't conflate history with dogma.
Riiight - tobacco industry (this would be the marketing and advertising guys). Using the same basic tactics as the organic movement. No objective evidence, but making a great deal of money off of an ignorant population.
6 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO.
Two points, what outcomes do you refer to when you say there's no scientific evidence? Again in the UK context whilst nutritional differences are marginal the organic system encompasses quit a lot more.
And organic <> anti-GMO. Each have a place in the market.
No evidence showing increase in nutritional value in organic foods. However their is a great deal of evidence showing decreased yield and increase risk using organic processes.
True - organic & anti-GMO are different topics, but the anti-science foundation is much the same.4 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO.
Two points, what outcomes do you refer to when you say there's no scientific evidence? Again in the UK context whilst nutritional differences are marginal the organic system encompasses quit a lot more.
And organic <> anti-GMO. Each have a place in the market.
No evidence showing increase in nutritional value in organic foods.
So the observations made upthread in more depthHowever their is a great deal of evidence showing decreased yield...
Indeed, although I'd observe that in the UK there is a significant degree of food waste, so we already grow far more than we need....and increase risk using organic processes.
And again, what do you mean by that? I'm conscious we're talking somewhat different industries as food quality standards are somewhat different here in Europe cf the US. As far as I'm concerned there is no increased risk from that perspective, but the business risk is somewhat higher than heavily industrialised farming. The observation upthread around Lincolnshire is valid, farming around there is very monocultural and pretty stable, whereas much of the organic industry here is based around co-operatives and generally smaller farms that may be quite specialised so a bit more vulnerable to either supply chain or demand market disruption.
2 -
Some people in this these are really keen on arguing in bad faith.
5 -
Not really, but I think certain things taste better. I do most of my shopping at Costco and they have a lot of organic stuff that is also cheaper than the regular stuff at the regular grocery store.3
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO.
Two points, what outcomes do you refer to when you say there's no scientific evidence? Again in the UK context whilst nutritional differences are marginal the organic system encompasses quit a lot more.
And organic <> anti-GMO. Each have a place in the market.
No evidence showing increase in nutritional value in organic foods.
So the observations made upthread in more depthHowever their is a great deal of evidence showing decreased yield...
Indeed, although I'd observe that in the UK there is a significant degree of food waste, so we already grow far more than we need....and increase risk using organic processes.
And again, what do you mean by that? I'm conscious we're talking somewhat different industries as food quality standards are somewhat different here in Europe cf the US. As far as I'm concerned there is no increased risk from that perspective, but the business risk is somewhat higher than heavily industrialised farming. The observation upthread around Lincolnshire is valid, farming around there is very monocultural and pretty stable, whereas much of the organic industry here is based around co-operatives and generally smaller farms that may be quite specialised so a bit more vulnerable to either supply chain or demand market disruption.
I saw the post. There is no measurable difference in organic vs non-organic. No statistically significant results exist.
Possibly - this is more an issue of storage and logistics. Your perception on waste/abundance is going to depend on your scope. Those concerning on world wide supply are not going to share the same concerns as those concerned with local supply.
I'm primarily concerned with risk to yield. There are multiple issues involved, but allowing the individual farmer the necessary latitude to manage risk is critical to success, particularly when evidence to support regulatory measures is lacking.1 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »those with autoimmune conditions often are less able to eliminate toxins than you regular mortals. It is my choice to consume foods which do not increase my toxic load. Chemical sensitivity, histamine intolerance as well as salicylate intolerance are among my personal issues. (Salicylate is produced by many plants to protect themselves from moulds and mildews many of the preparations will have similar structures) Autoimmune conditions are many and complicated. One of the UK's eminent Professors in Immunology has said my symptoms are at the edge of present scientific understanding. To see the tolerance distribution of chemicals as a bell curve, most of you will be within the deeper portion, myself and others similarly placed will be at the flatter ends making us outside the normal range. Those of you who do not have issues similar to mine are more than welcome to consume what you wish.
It is a consequence of my auto immunity that I and others like me lack the quantity or ability to make the enzymes or to host many microbes required for normal absorption and elimination of much the populous call normal.
I fear the international closer integration of seed and chemical companies for whom the bottom line is pure profit not the sustainability of common people to feed themselves, those in poorer communities than ours. Thankfully I live in the UK for our food choices but not for the available treatments of autoimmunity.
I do have autoimmune diseases (two of them) and I do live in the UK... and I still think you're spouting woo. Organic foods really aren't grown with any less 'chemicals'. The only difference is that organic pesticides, fertilisers etc have been 'certified organic'. Which really means... nothing. They're still made in labs. It's not difficult to get something like that organic certified. I live in Lincolnshire where a lot of the country's home-grown food is made (including 95% of the country's brussel sprouts!) - both organic and non-organic. I know several farmers. Organic farmers are laughing all the way to the bank because they can charge more and change almost nothing.
One of the (many) reasons I doubt the validity of what you're saying is that you said you have 'chemical sensitivity'. Uh. Everything is made of chemicals. You are made of chemicals. Water is made of chemicals. People are just scared by big words. Oh no, not dihydrogen monoxide! Except dihydrogen monoxide is just water. You are going to have to be more specific unless you want scientists to think you're sensitive to literally everything.
I'm also confused by your sudden speech on sustainability? Organic farming is the LEAST SUSTAINABLE form of farming. You get statistically less yield for the same size growing area. If you forced people in Africa to grow organic, there'd be widespread famine. If you're really worried about sustainability, GMOs are the best solution. Not only can they be grown in harsh environments such as those found in poor areas of the world, but they use far less herbicides, pesticides, fertiliser etc. Their genes mean they are naturally immune to insects and weeds and the like. You won't get more 'organic' than that.
Chemical sensitivity means people with it have bad reactions to "normal" chemicals that most people do not. For example, fabric softener makes me sick. When my neighbor is doing laundry, I can't be in my yard. I get headaches and brain fog.
This has nothing to do with being afraid of big words.
I developed chemical sensitivities after working in a building that turned out to have toxic mold which grew after water intrusion was not properly remediated.4 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »those with autoimmune conditions often are less able to eliminate toxins than you regular mortals. It is my choice to consume foods which do not increase my toxic load. Chemical sensitivity, histamine intolerance as well as salicylate intolerance are among my personal issues. (Salicylate is produced by many plants to protect themselves from moulds and mildews many of the preparations will have similar structures) Autoimmune conditions are many and complicated. One of the UK's eminent Professors in Immunology has said my symptoms are at the edge of present scientific understanding. To see the tolerance distribution of chemicals as a bell curve, most of you will be within the deeper portion, myself and others similarly placed will be at the flatter ends making us outside the normal range. Those of you who do not have issues similar to mine are more than welcome to consume what you wish.
It is a consequence of my auto immunity that I and others like me lack the quantity or ability to make the enzymes or to host many microbes required for normal absorption and elimination of much the populous call normal.
I fear the international closer integration of seed and chemical companies for whom the bottom line is pure profit not the sustainability of common people to feed themselves, those in poorer communities than ours. Thankfully I live in the UK for our food choices but not for the available treatments of autoimmunity.
I do have autoimmune diseases (two of them) and I do live in the UK... and I still think you're spouting woo. Organic foods really aren't grown with any less 'chemicals'. The only difference is that organic pesticides, fertilisers etc have been 'certified organic'. Which really means... nothing. They're still made in labs. It's not difficult to get something like that organic certified. I live in Lincolnshire where a lot of the country's home-grown food is made (including 95% of the country's brussel sprouts!) - both organic and non-organic. I know several farmers. Organic farmers are laughing all the way to the bank because they can charge more and change almost nothing.
One of the (many) reasons I doubt the validity of what you're saying is that you said you have 'chemical sensitivity'. Uh. Everything is made of chemicals. You are made of chemicals. Water is made of chemicals. People are just scared by big words. Oh no, not dihydrogen monoxide! Except dihydrogen monoxide is just water. You are going to have to be more specific unless you want scientists to think you're sensitive to literally everything.
I'm also confused by your sudden speech on sustainability? Organic farming is the LEAST SUSTAINABLE form of farming. You get statistically less yield for the same size growing area. If you forced people in Africa to grow organic, there'd be widespread famine. If you're really worried about sustainability, GMOs are the best solution. Not only can they be grown in harsh environments such as those found in poor areas of the world, but they use far less herbicides, pesticides, fertiliser etc. Their genes mean they are naturally immune to insects and weeds and the like. You won't get more 'organic' than that.
Do you believe there is no difference between the Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) I have used to control cabbage worms and the organophosphate Monitor that was used to kill aphids in http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/magazine/playing-god-in-the-garden.html?mcubz=1 ?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »In the US the choice being local/small farm and organic are two different things. You can focus on small farm and local and get all conventional produce and you can get everything in the grocery store from far, far away and get all organic.
I get local and in-season and small agriculture when possible (this is in part about taste, in part about supporting small farms, in part about animal treatment/knowing my farmer for meat/eggs/cheese, in part just because I enjoy it). My main sources tend to be organic farms (I think a lot of smaller farms tend to know they have a niche market where they can do better if they can appeal to those who want organic), but I don't care about that bit. I do find that local and in-season tastes different, and better (it's the only way I buy strawberries, other than frozen, tomatoes, other than canned, corn at all, quite a lot of fruit). When I buy in the grocery store, however, which is not an insignificant part of the year as I'm in Chicago (a northern climate) so local produce would often leave me with little, I don't care a whit about organic and don't think it's worth the extra cost.
This time of year I buy from the small family farms here in MA as much as possible. Local peaches and apples are just so much better than what is available in the supermarket. My favorite, honey crisps, are in at the local fruit farm.
Because they are small, they are not using a lot of the practices in the Michael Pollen article I linked above.0 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »Or is it mainly just marketing and advertising?
Those aren't the only options. You left out biodiversity and environmental and health advantages to farm workers as things that could, for some people, justify the higher cost.6 -
I am not an expert and have no desire to hash anything out. I just wanted to throw out a perspective. I went to a cont Ed course a few years ago and the speaker said that our food is not the same as it was a few generations ago. She gave example of beef. Cows are meant to eat grass. They get certain nutrients from it. When they are fed on corn they are missing some of nutrients they need. When we eat beef missing those nutrients we are missing nutrients as well. Made sense to me. I recently had the opportunity to purchase a half a cow that was grass fed/finished - wow! You can taste the difference.1
-
I am not an expert and have no desire to hash anything out. I just wanted to throw out a perspective. I went to a cont Ed course a few years ago and the speaker said that our food is not the same as it was a few generations ago. She gave example of beef. Cows are meant to eat grass. They get certain nutrients from it. When they are fed on corn they are missing some of nutrients they need. When we eat beef missing those nutrients we are missing nutrients as well. Made sense to me. I recently had the opportunity to purchase a half a cow that was grass fed/finished - wow! You can taste the difference.
even bad cuts of grass fed beef put good cuts of grain-fed beef to shame. I buy these super lean, cheap, sirloin cuts (just had one for dinner 5 minutes ago actually) from my butcher, and they're better than the best new york strip I ever got from the grocery store. Night and day.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Or is it mainly just marketing and advertising?
Those aren't the only options. You left out biodiversity and environmental and health advantages to farm workers as things that could, for some people, justify the higher cost.
Except that the organic chemicals used can be far more toxic and used more times than traditional chemicals.
5 -
dunno.....
do they make organic Pop-Tarts ?3 -
I am not an expert and have no desire to hash anything out. I just wanted to throw out a perspective. I went to a cont Ed course a few years ago and the speaker said that our food is not the same as it was a few generations ago. She gave example of beef. Cows are meant to eat grass. They get certain nutrients from it. When they are fed on corn they are missing some of nutrients they need. When we eat beef missing those nutrients we are missing nutrients as well. Made sense to me. I recently had the opportunity to purchase a half a cow that was grass fed/finished - wow! You can taste the difference.
even bad cuts of grass fed beef put good cuts of grain-fed beef to shame. I buy these super lean, cheap, sirloin cuts (just had one for dinner 5 minutes ago actually) from my butcher, and they're better than the best new york strip I ever got from the grocery store. Night and day.
This is true.
I believe that grass fed beef has an omega-3 lipid profile as compared to grain fed's omega 6. (3's better )
.... or so I've been told.0 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »Or is it mainly just marketing and advertising?
this is really the worst site ever to pose anything health related. you'll get so many ppl ignorant to health.. keep the posts to carbs and calories.. anything else and their heads will explode..6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions