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?
Options
Replies
-
Shawshankcan wrote: »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.
I suspect that you're responding to the point about worker health, which I'd agree is a slightly specious argument.
This is where you have to get into an appreciation of what that means. Again I'm conscious that in the UK the principal organic certification scheme has been around for 50 years, so it's very mature, but it quite clearly recognises that a broad spectrum of outcomes are significant.
Risk to operators on application can be managed through the use of respiratory barriers, so no different from Glyphosate for example. Broad brush statements about being more, or less, toxic don't add much to the debate as there is a range of effect at different points in the supply chain.
t's also worth thinking about where various products are impacting in the food chain. There is a lot of work going on at the moment on neoncotinoids; which appear to have a lower toxicity to birds, but a higher level of toxicity lower in their food chain. The evidence isn't conclusive, and the debate has been hampered by the low quality of early studies into the subject.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.
It wasn't all marketing and advertising guys. The tobacco industry funded a whole cadre of doctors and scientific researchers specifically to fabricate scientific evidence that smoking was not bad for you. It was called the Tabbacco Industry Research Council. They also formed a trade group called the Tabasco Institute which was staffed with scientists whose job it was to attack all scientific studies that came out as anti-tabbacco. These were disbanded in 1998 but were very powerful in the seventies and eighties. A good movie to watch, for fun, is thank you for smoking which is a light hearted biography of one of the Tabasco industry lobbyists and how he lobbied for them. Including trying to bribe Marlboro Man from not switching sides and stating that he was dying of lung cancer from smoking.1 -
Darn auto correct. Please read "Tabacco" for "Tabasco"0
-
I think so. I also think it tastes better. Where I purchase my vegies supports local farmers, and organic produce isn't much more expensive than non-organic produce. It also lasts a lot longer....3
-
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.
It wasn't all marketing and advertising guys. The tobacco industry funded a whole cadre of doctors and scientific researchers specifically to fabricate scientific evidence that smoking was not bad for you. It was called the Tabbacco Industry Research Council. They also formed a trade group called the Tabasco Institute which was staffed with scientists whose job it was to attack all scientific studies that came out as anti-tabbacco. These were disbanded in 1998 but were very powerful in the seventies and eighties. A good movie to watch, for fun, is thank you for smoking which is a light hearted biography of one of the Tabasco industry lobbyists and how he lobbied for them. Including trying to bribe Marlboro Man from not switching sides and stating that he was dying of lung cancer from smoking.
I think what CSARDiver is trying to suggest is that BigOrganics (tm) are doing the same thing around science supporting the organics market. I'm conscious that in the US the organics market is locked up in only 3-4 major suppliers, in a way that is quite different to the European market.
As ever, some of the science is pretty flaky, on both sides of the argument. If you segment your question in an appropriate way you can prove almost anything. For example there is quite a bit of work that demonstrates that Glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic when ingested. Those studies are used in some discussions to suggest that Glysophate is safe, regardless of context.3 -
I don't know about the nutritional value, but eating the food I grow myself certainly saves me money and (to me) tastes better!
I've been picking leaves off the same 6 baby spinach and kale plants for 10 months now... they're "cut and come again" plants that seem to grow back more leafy the more I pick. Bags of spinach and kale cost $4 each here. I've had about 40 bags full from plants that only cost $5 for seeds and potting mix... in a recycled plastic container... on a window ledge in my kitchen... lol. They're not slowing down either. I'm fairly sure I'll be eating this spinach for a while yet before the plants bolt...
I now have several other indoor plants growing up from seed... tomatoes, raddishes, strawberries, and chillies
I have no green thumb either, just a tight budget and I want to eat fresh vegetables...6 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »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.
It wasn't all marketing and advertising guys. The tobacco industry funded a whole cadre of doctors and scientific researchers specifically to fabricate scientific evidence that smoking was not bad for you. It was called the Tabbacco Industry Research Council. They also formed a trade group called the Tabasco Institute which was staffed with scientists whose job it was to attack all scientific studies that came out as anti-tabbacco. These were disbanded in 1998 but were very powerful in the seventies and eighties. A good movie to watch, for fun, is thank you for smoking which is a light hearted biography of one of the Tabasco industry lobbyists and how he lobbied for them. Including trying to bribe Marlboro Man from not switching sides and stating that he was dying of lung cancer from smoking.
I think what CSARDiver is trying to suggest is that BigOrganics (tm) are doing the same thing around science supporting the organics market. I'm conscious that in the US the organics market is locked up in only 3-4 major suppliers, in a way that is quite different to the European market.
As ever, some of the science is pretty flaky, on both sides of the argument. If you segment your question in an appropriate way you can prove almost anything. For example there is quite a bit of work that demonstrates that Glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic when ingested. Those studies are used in some discussions to suggest that Glysophate is safe, regardless of context.
Ok, got it. I agree the science is flaky on both sides and I think that if Big Organics is engaging in this type of bad science and marketing woo similar to the tobacco industry, then why don't people see that Big GMO is also doing likewise? Big GMO has ten times the money and resources that Big Organics has. Your example of how Big GMO has overstated safety findings about glyphosate is a clear example of this.2 -
Motorsheen wrote: »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.
Both omega-3 and omega-6 are good fats. I assume you are basing that comment on the fact that many people eat much more 6 than 3 which, while true, has nothing to do with one being "better".
Also, the amount of omega-3 in grass fed beef is not much. It's really only in butter that it makes much difference. The difference in grass fed vs corn finished butter is pretty significant.
Edit: also, grass fed does not necessarily mean organic.2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »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.
It wasn't all marketing and advertising guys. The tobacco industry funded a whole cadre of doctors and scientific researchers specifically to fabricate scientific evidence that smoking was not bad for you. It was called the Tabbacco Industry Research Council. They also formed a trade group called the Tabasco Institute which was staffed with scientists whose job it was to attack all scientific studies that came out as anti-tabbacco. These were disbanded in 1998 but were very powerful in the seventies and eighties. A good movie to watch, for fun, is thank you for smoking which is a light hearted biography of one of the Tabasco industry lobbyists and how he lobbied for them. Including trying to bribe Marlboro Man from not switching sides and stating that he was dying of lung cancer from smoking.
I think what CSARDiver is trying to suggest is that BigOrganics (tm) are doing the same thing around science supporting the organics market. I'm conscious that in the US the organics market is locked up in only 3-4 major suppliers, in a way that is quite different to the European market.
As ever, some of the science is pretty flaky, on both sides of the argument. If you segment your question in an appropriate way you can prove almost anything. For example there is quite a bit of work that demonstrates that Glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic when ingested. Those studies are used in some discussions to suggest that Glysophate is safe, regardless of context.
Ok, got it. I agree the science is flaky on both sides and I think that if Big Organics is engaging in this type of bad science and marketing woo similar to the tobacco industry, then why don't people see that Big GMO is also doing likewise? Big GMO has ten times the money and resources that Big Organics has. Your example of how Big GMO has overstated safety findings about glyphosate is a clear example of this.
As you state this was an industry paying people to fabricate "science". I would categorize this under marketing and advertising. Classifying anything as Big "insert villainous firm here" is disingenuous and is promoting conspiracy theories. Supporting an industry because it's an underdog is not going to lead you to a good outcome.
In all things follow the objective evidence and leave emotion out of discussion.
I will state that I love the taste of my personally grown veges and personally harvested game, but I cannot scientifically support that one is superior over another. Nutritionally speaking these are statistically identical. There are risk/rewards to both methods. Choose yours wisely.2 -
I will state that I love the taste of my personally grown veges and personally harvested game, but I cannot scientifically support that one is superior over another. Nutritionally speaking these are statistically identical.
How do you know that your personally grown veges are statistically identical? Identical to what?1 -
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.
It wasn't all marketing and advertising guys. The tobacco industry funded a whole cadre of doctors and scientific researchers specifically to fabricate scientific evidence that smoking was not bad for you.
Right. And today we're being told by people who have a financial interest in GMO that it's not bad for us. Perhaps it's not. But those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and a little bit of cynicism is healthy and often proven correct after the dust settles.1 -
tiffaninghs wrote: »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..
Really? In my experience, the overall user population here is much more science-based and informed than many other places I've hung out online. Even many of the people I frequently disagree with have done their research and make good arguments to back up their opinions.5 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I will state that I love the taste of my personally grown veges and personally harvested game, but I cannot scientifically support that one is superior over another. Nutritionally speaking these are statistically identical.
How do you know that your personally grown veges are statistically identical? Identical to what?
Basing this off of the results of personal testing for my home grown crop.
As for macro scale there is no evidence showing a statistically significant nutritional difference between organic/non-organic.
2 -
Not to me. Idgaf. And my DH hears it so much from one of his co-workers that he ruins anything I may accidentally get that has the words "organic" "GMO", etc in it, lmao. If it tastes better/is a better product, I don't care what it says.1
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I will state that I love the taste of my personally grown veges and personally harvested game, but I cannot scientifically support that one is superior over another. Nutritionally speaking these are statistically identical.
How do you know that your personally grown veges are statistically identical? Identical to what?
Basing this off of the results of personal testing for my home grown crop.
Interesting. Where/how did you test it?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I will state that I love the taste of my personally grown veges and personally harvested game, but I cannot scientifically support that one is superior over another. Nutritionally speaking these are statistically identical.
How do you know that your personally grown veges are statistically identical? Identical to what?
Basing this off of the results of personal testing for my home grown crop.
Interesting. Where/how did you test it?
I'm a microbiologist. My wife is a molecular biologist. We both have access to full laboratories.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I will state that I love the taste of my personally grown veges and personally harvested game, but I cannot scientifically support that one is superior over another. Nutritionally speaking these are statistically identical.
How do you know that your personally grown veges are statistically identical? Identical to what?
Basing this off of the results of personal testing for my home grown crop.
Interesting. Where/how did you test it?
I'm a microbiologist. My wife is a molecular biologist. We both have access to full laboratories.
OIC Bummer. I'd love to have mine tested. I spend a lot of time on my soil. I'd like to know if it makes a difference other than better yields.0 -
I don't know if there is a nutritional advantage to buying organic versus conventional but I buy organic. I've never followed organic or conventional farmers for a season to see the difference in their farming practices or if they're laughing all the way to the bank. I buy organic for the same reasons I recycle,think fracking is a poor practice and would like the US to join the Paris agreement. It's because I don't just focus on the here and now or just think about the fifty cents extra I spent on an apple. I don't think I'm a tree hugger or a fool that's been parted from his money but I am trying to look at the bigger picture and support things that seem to benefit our planet. If it cuts my pesticide consumption all the better4
-
emailmehere1122 wrote: »I don't know if there is a nutritional advantage to buying organic versus conventional but I buy organic. I've never followed organic or conventional farmers for a season to see the difference in their farming practices or if they're laughing all the way to the bank. I buy organic for the same reasons I recycle,think fracking is a poor practice and would like the US to join the Paris agreement. It's because I don't just focus on the here and now or just think about the fifty cents extra I spent on an apple. I don't think I'm a tree hugger or a fool that's been parted from his money but I am trying to look at the bigger picture and support things that seem to benefit our planet. If it cuts my pesticide consumption all the better
Problem is, that growing organic often requires more resources for the same yield. So it's kinda the opposite of recycling. Same with non-GMO products. It's part of the reason they are priced higher.2
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