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
-
JustRobby1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kayla25mfp wrote: »I had no idea people cared this much either way about organic or non organic food. To be honest, I feel like in a way it is similar to some brand name products vs getting generic. There is a slight difference (whether good or bad, the difference is there) and for some people it's worth it to have the brand name. My mom has a farm and in order to have it certified organic there was a lot she would have had to do differently. As it is though the produce and meat was raised very naturally though. I'm a believer in organic foods but I would still rather buy from a place that I'd been too and understood how they operated but did use minimal non organic chemicals than organic foods I didn't know the origins of.
We mentioned the difference in grain fed vs grass fed but it wasn't touched on that a lot of farmers feed their milking cows things like expired snickers bars and baked goods. I won't believe for a second that that milk has the same nutritional value as a grass fed cow's milk.
Organic is just one element of a huge picture. It's one factor that I consider.... but along with and beside many other factors. Not alone.
I'm not sure more than a couple of posters and the OP care much at all.
I agree with your post though. I always say I garden organically but I probably couldn't pass an inspection without some changes either. I don't care. I think my methods are fine and they meet my standards for organic.
The size of the industry would suggest people do indeed care in fairly large numbers, or at least, want to make it appear as though they do.
LOL I meant posters on this thread. But buying organic doesn't necessarily mean thinking it's more nutritious. There are many reason to buy organic other than nutritional profile.1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »
@Tacklewasher
Yes, for most crops organic produces lower yields ( but not all, for example organic hay production outstrips conventional). But crop yields alone cannot be used to determine a "winner" in farming techniques.
Organic farming aims to be sustainable whereas conventional farming aims to maximise crop yields. Sustainable agriculture is the production of food, fiber, or other plant or animal products using farming techniques that protect the environment, public health, human communities, and animal welfare. This form of agriculture aims to produce healthful food without compromising future generations' ability to do the same.
Are you suggesting that conventional farmers don't care about sustainability? That seems like a rather short-sighted business model. Particularly for those whose farms have been in the family for generations.
I not suggesting that conventional farmers do not care about sustainability, merely that the priorities of conventional farming and organic farming are different and therefore the differences in methods and techniques. Organic farming has sustainability as a higher priority than does conventional farming. This is a well known and published fact, not an opinion.
I suspect that you're misusing the word sustainable. Most likely deliberately.
Otherwise I shall call you Vizzinni.
5 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »
@Tacklewasher
Yes, for most crops organic produces lower yields ( but not all, for example organic hay production outstrips conventional). But crop yields alone cannot be used to determine a "winner" in farming techniques.
Organic farming aims to be sustainable whereas conventional farming aims to maximise crop yields. Sustainable agriculture is the production of food, fiber, or other plant or animal products using farming techniques that protect the environment, public health, human communities, and animal welfare. This form of agriculture aims to produce healthful food without compromising future generations' ability to do the same.
Are you suggesting that conventional farmers don't care about sustainability? That seems like a rather short-sighted business model. Particularly for those whose farms have been in the family for generations.
I not suggesting that conventional farmers do not care about sustainability, merely that the priorities of conventional farming and organic farming are different and therefore the differences in methods and techniques. Organic farming has sustainability as a higher priority than does conventional farming. This is a well known and published fact, not an opinion.
I would like to see this published fact whereby it is stated that conventional farmers care less about sustainability than do organic farmers. By someone who is not trying to sell organic farming as the better option. I just don't buy it.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »
@Tacklewasher
Yes, for most crops organic produces lower yields ( but not all, for example organic hay production outstrips conventional). But crop yields alone cannot be used to determine a "winner" in farming techniques.
Organic farming aims to be sustainable whereas conventional farming aims to maximise crop yields. Sustainable agriculture is the production of food, fiber, or other plant or animal products using farming techniques that protect the environment, public health, human communities, and animal welfare. This form of agriculture aims to produce healthful food without compromising future generations' ability to do the same.
Are you suggesting that conventional farmers don't care about sustainability? That seems like a rather short-sighted business model. Particularly for those whose farms have been in the family for generations.
I not suggesting that conventional farmers do not care about sustainability, merely that the priorities of conventional farming and organic farming are different and therefore the differences in methods and techniques. Organic farming has sustainability as a higher priority than does conventional farming. This is a well known and published fact, not an opinion.
Is it? Can you site some publications?2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Wow this thread has certianly spiraled significantly since I made it a couple of days ago. It would seem after scanning over many of the posts here that much of the attachment to organic stems from ideological or emotional reasons rather than practical or health related reasons. There is also some borderline conspiracy theory, but I will ignore that and instead suggest that this is not the Alex Jones forums.
There is also of course the issue of taste, which is the reason any of us eat food to begin with. While this is similarly subjective, I don't think many would dispute that a tomato from a framers market will beat out the grocery store any day of the week. The larger issue as it pertains to cost is not so much with produce but with the multitude of ready made products from places like Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, etc. and the army of pretentious clowns who line up for them. I would suggest that about 90% of such people purchase those products for the same reasons they buy designer handbags, listen to annoying indie pop, and pay 15 bucks for a Latte.
Just so you know, Trader Joe's is pretty inexpensive, so shopping there isn't pretentious. We go there to save money on some products.
Saying that I have on occasion bought organic, and that's when it's looked fresher than the alternative when I've been shopping for that particular item. This happens a lot when I'm shopping for bananas. The organics are more ripe and ready to eat and I want one that day or something like that.
I've bought organic salad mix if it's the one that's on sale that week.
I really don't have a horse in this race, just wanted to make a comment about Trader Joe's and their prices. The coffee is cheap, yo.
He does have a point on the specialty 'processed'/ready-made foods though - a ridiculous amount of people will pay more for a product because they used different wording for things like sugar. I can't help laughing when I see stuff like "evaporated cane juice" on a label.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Wow this thread has certianly spiraled significantly since I made it a couple of days ago. It would seem after scanning over many of the posts here that much of the attachment to organic stems from ideological or emotional reasons rather than practical or health related reasons. There is also some borderline conspiracy theory, but I will ignore that and instead suggest that this is not the Alex Jones forums.
There is also of course the issue of taste, which is the reason any of us eat food to begin with. While this is similarly subjective, I don't think many would dispute that a tomato from a framers market will beat out the grocery store any day of the week. The larger issue as it pertains to cost is not so much with produce but with the multitude of ready made products from places like Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, etc. and the army of pretentious clowns who line up for them. I would suggest that about 90% of such people purchase those products for the same reasons they buy designer handbags, listen to annoying indie pop, and pay 15 bucks for a Latte.
Just so you know, Trader Joe's is pretty inexpensive, so shopping there isn't pretentious. We go there to save money on some products.
Saying that I have on occasion bought organic, and that's when it's looked fresher than the alternative when I've been shopping for that particular item. This happens a lot when I'm shopping for bananas. The organics are more ripe and ready to eat and I want one that day or something like that.
I've bought organic salad mix if it's the one that's on sale that week.
I really don't have a horse in this race, just wanted to make a comment about Trader Joe's and their prices. The coffee is cheap, yo.
He does have a point on the specialty 'processed'/ready-made foods though - a ridiculous amount of people will pay more for a product because they used different wording for things like sugar. I can't help laughing when I see stuff like "evaporated cane juice" on a label.
How do you know that's why they are buying it?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Wow this thread has certianly spiraled significantly since I made it a couple of days ago. It would seem after scanning over many of the posts here that much of the attachment to organic stems from ideological or emotional reasons rather than practical or health related reasons. There is also some borderline conspiracy theory, but I will ignore that and instead suggest that this is not the Alex Jones forums.
There is also of course the issue of taste, which is the reason any of us eat food to begin with. While this is similarly subjective, I don't think many would dispute that a tomato from a framers market will beat out the grocery store any day of the week. The larger issue as it pertains to cost is not so much with produce but with the multitude of ready made products from places like Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, etc. and the army of pretentious clowns who line up for them. I would suggest that about 90% of such people purchase those products for the same reasons they buy designer handbags, listen to annoying indie pop, and pay 15 bucks for a Latte.
I don't know about your area, but a good portion of the produce at my farmer's market isn't organic and even the places that are following organic practices don't have certification. The tomato tasting better is a completely different issue from the organic question.
Yes, this! It's amazing how many people think homegrown and organic are synonymous.
Local/Homegrown do tend to taste better, but that's primarily a factor of time to market, crop to soil ratio(density per sq foot), ripeness, and batch size.
Yeah, I'm not an expert but I always figured the reason the farmer's market food tastes so much better to me was a combination of time to market and some emotional bias on my part towards the farmer's market. I never thought of the crop to soil ratio, but that makes sense too.
All this, plus sometimes different/a greater selection of varietals.
Oh, that's true. I see all kinds of varietals for sale at the farmer's market that I've never seen in a grocery store, even fancier ones.1 -
More people eat organic now then they did five years ago and there will be more people eating organic five years from now. Because there is money to be made there will be investment which will spur innovation. More innovative should increase yield per acre. More yield per acre will bring more product to market. More product in the market place should make prices more comparable to conventional farming.
Suppose there were three glasses of water and you were going to drink one Would you choose the one that's been treated the least but safe to consume (organic) unfiltered from the tap (conventional) or treated to kill a bug that takes a sip(gmo)
Organic produce doesn't differ much from conventional but it isn't always about the end result...sometimes it's about the process
And btw I bet a thousand years ago if you told someone the world isn't flat they might have called you a hipster.4 -
Demonstrates fundamental failure to understand GMO.emailmehere1122 wrote: »More people eat organic now then they did five years ago and there will be more people eating organic five years from now. Because there is money to be made there will be investment which will spur innovation. More innovative should increase yield per acre. More yield per acre will bring more product to market. More product in the market place should make prices more comparable to conventional farming.
Suppose there were three glasses of water and you were going to drink one Would you choose the one that's been treated the least but safe to consume (organic) unfiltered from the tap (conventional) or treated to kill a bug that takes a sip(gmo)
GMO are generally engineered to increase yield, or to survive a particular pesticide/insecticide that's more effective.Organic produce doesn't differ much from conventional but it isn't always about the end result...sometimes it's about the process
And btw I bet a thousand years ago if you told someone the world isn't flat they might have called you a hipster.
The size and shape of the earth has been calculated and proven and known by educated persons for 3 millennia. Both the ancient greeks and Egyptians knew the size of the earth to within the margin of error of their instruments/calculations AKA somewhere around 20-30K Miles in circumference.
3 -
emailmehere1122 wrote: »More people eat organic now then they did five years ago and there will be more people eating organic five years from now. Because there is money to be made there will be investment which will spur innovation. More innovative should increase yield per acre. More yield per acre will bring more product to market. More product in the market place should make prices more comparable to conventional farming.
Suppose there were three glasses of water and you were going to drink one Would you choose the one that's been treated the least but safe to consume (organic) unfiltered from the tap (conventional) or treated to kill a bug that takes a sip(gmo)
Organic produce doesn't differ much from conventional but it isn't always about the end result...sometimes it's about the process
And btw I bet a thousand years ago if you told someone the world isn't flat they might have called you a hipster.
I'd be very surprised to find out people in 1017 were calling anyone a hipster.4 -
Late to the party but here are my thoughts:
I do not specifically buy organic. I DO buy as close to the grower as possible. This means Farmer's Markets and roadside farm stands. I also buy my meat, dairy, and produce from grocery stores that buy locally rather than the big national chains (including Whole Foods and Trader Joe's). I live in an agricultural state so this is easy to do.
Certain things I won't buy if they are labelled "organic" because the label is meaningless and a reason to jack up the price: dried herbs, spices, and seasonings. These (except some herbs) are grown organically anyway because the plants developed the strong flavor we like as a defense against insects. Also, most are grown outside the US where organic certification is non existent or uses different standards.1 -
@stanmann571 there's a link in this very thread to an article about Monsanto creating at potato that when eaten by a potato bug will kill it... seems the failure to understand gmo is your failure
So sorry my sarcastic remark about the shape of the earth and the use of the word hipster was historically incorrect
ETA: anyone who has read every post here would know what I was being sarcastic about
3 -
emailmehere1122 wrote: »More people eat organic now then they did five years ago and there will be more people eating organic five years from now. Because there is money to be made there will be investment which will spur innovation. More innovative should increase yield per acre. More yield per acre will bring more product to market. More product in the market place should make prices more comparable to conventional farming.
Suppose there were three glasses of water and you were going to drink one Would you choose the one that's been treated the least but safe to consume (organic) unfiltered from the tap (conventional) or treated to kill a bug that takes a sip(gmo)
Not sure the analogy works, but what water is this that's treated less than tap? You mean, do I set up a troth to collect rain water or something?
Anyway, I drink tap, mostly, so I guess that means I am happy with conventional produce, which is true.
As prior posters have pointed out, the process involved in farming that doesn't qualify for "organic" is quite varied, and IMO other things make more of a difference.
And to use JustRobby's analogy (just for fun) "organic" doesn't really have that much hipster cred anyway. It's like being into Arcade Fire only after they won the Grammy.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's like being into Arcade Fire only after they won the Grammy.
I'm not sure why, but I can't stop laughing at this.
0 -
emailmehere1122 wrote: »@stanmann571 there's a link in this very thread to an article about Monsanto creating at potato that when eaten by a potato bug will kill it... seems the failure to understand gmo is your failure
So sorry my sarcastic remark about the shape of the earth and the use of the word hipster was historically incorrect
ETA: anyone who has read every post here would know what I was being sarcastic about
If there was, then the information in the article is either wrong or very mis-leading - potato bugs do not eat the root (i.e. the potato) of the plant - they eat the leaves on the plant. Any modification to the plant would take place in the leaves and not in the root. So you would not be eating the modified portion of the plant if it were GMO.2 -
There really is a lot lost in reading a typed message on the internet versus speaking face to face.
@lemurcat12 the water question was hypothetical...all things being equal I would pick the least tampered with water and I think most people would also. It was just hypothetical. And earlier in the thread Robbie called people hipsters for buying organic
@ccrdragon I should have said potato plant...that experiment failed because no one wanted to eat the potatoes but it makes me wonder if insect resistant is the same wolf in sheeps clothing2 -
emailmehere1122 wrote: »There really is a lot lost in reading a typed message on the internet versus speaking face to face.
@lemurcat12 the water question was hypothetical...all things being equal I would pick the least tampered with water and I think most people would also. It was just hypothetical. And earlier in the thread Robbie called people hipsters for buying organic
@ccrdragon I should have said potato plant...that experiment failed because no one wanted to eat the potatoes but it makes me wonder if insect resistant is the same wolf in sheeps clothing
So the plant is not in the food supply, and thus irrelevant to the discussion.2 -
Organic better for health? No. A banana is a banana.
Better tasting? Sometimes. Especially if it's locally grown/less stored and transported.
Less pesticides released into the general environment? Not usually. Organic does not mean pesticide free. And natural pesticide doesn't mean non-toxic or safe or less harmful to the environment.
Personally, I'd lean more towards finding local farmers who don't monoculture crops and are smaller and non-factory whether they use organic practices or not.3 -
The nutritional value is the same. The value, for some, lies elsewhere.1
-
@stanmann571 The plant grows from the root...aka tuber...aka potato0
-
Less pesticides released into the general environment? Not usually. Organic does not mean pesticide free. And natural pesticide doesn't mean non-toxic or safe or less harmful to the environment.
I question whether this is true. Not the last sentence so much as the first. I'll admit I don't read up on commercial organic practices all that much, but for the local organic farmer that uses pesticides they often look for those that don't leave as much residue as non-organic. Things that break down quickly rather than hanging around for decades and working their way into waterways and surrounding lands.
I often see people argue that there isn't value in organic pesticides because often they are applied more often, when in some instances the value is why they are applied more often. Because they break down quickly and therefore must be reapplied throughout the growing season.
If you have something to back up the statement that organic farming practices don't usually mean better for the environment I'd love to see it. I know that sounds a little "put up or shut up" type but I don't mean it that way. I am genuinely interested.1 -
emailmehere1122 wrote: »@stanmann571 The plant grows from the root...aka tuber...aka potato
The plant from the article you've cited isn't in the food supply. And thus is irrelevant to the discussion.
It never progressed beyond theoretical/initial test.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I question whether this is true. Not the last sentence so much as the first. I'll admit I don't read up on commercial organic practices all that much, but for the local organic farmer that uses pesticides they often look for those that don't leave as much residue as non-organic. Things that break down quickly rather than hanging around for decades and working their way into waterways and surrounding lands.
I often see people argue that there isn't value in organic pesticides because often they are applied more often, when in some instances the value is why they are applied more often. Because they break down quickly and therefore must be reapplied throughout the growing season.
I know I've referred a number of times to geographic differences in practice, but the Soil Association certification applies to about 80% of the growers in the UK, and it's available elsewhere. They accredit a number of herbicides and pesticides largely around persistence, and collateral effects. What we're seeing in this thread, as with so many others, is an example of poor science literacy. The fact that organic growers use herbicides and pesticides seems to be used as a reason to condemn the practice, rather than explore the rationale for their use.
Fwiw one of the points I have seen about environmental impact relates to an increased workforce, with all the related infrastructure to support them.1 -
People realize that most larger organic farms douse the soil with pesticides days before planting, then plant. They can call it pesticide free legally at this point.
Source: Knows farmers.
Farmers aren't praying that little insects don't eat them into bankruptcy. They are actively doing something about it.1 -
Calichusetts wrote: »People realize that most larger organic farms douse the soil with pesticides days before planting, then plant. They can call it pesticide free legally at this point.
Source: Knows farmers.
Farmers aren't praying that little insects don't eat them into bankruptcy. They are actively doing something about it.
You know farmers that use pesticides and lie about it?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Calichusetts wrote: »People realize that most larger organic farms douse the soil with pesticides days before planting, then plant. They can call it pesticide free legally at this point.
Source: Knows farmers.
Farmers aren't praying that little insects don't eat them into bankruptcy. They are actively doing something about it.
You know farmers that use pesticides and lie about it?
If it's used on the soil, and not the plants, it's not lying.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Calichusetts wrote: »People realize that most larger organic farms douse the soil with pesticides days before planting, then plant. They can call it pesticide free legally at this point.
Source: Knows farmers.
Farmers aren't praying that little insects don't eat them into bankruptcy. They are actively doing something about it.
You know farmers that use pesticides and lie about it?
If it's used on the soil, and not the plants, it's not lying.
Given that many pesticides can are neutralised fairly quickly in soil I'm unconvinced that it's a particularly cost effective approach. I'd also expect something more than my mate as a source.
Fwiw I suppose legal probably depends on the certification scheme. Wouldn't be acceptable in Europe.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Calichusetts wrote: »People realize that most larger organic farms douse the soil with pesticides days before planting, then plant. They can call it pesticide free legally at this point.
Source: Knows farmers.
Farmers aren't praying that little insects don't eat them into bankruptcy. They are actively doing something about it.
You know farmers that use pesticides and lie about it?
If it's used on the soil, and not the plants, it's not lying.
How so? After a reread I see they they said 'legally' so I guess they weren't actually saying they lied, just that the law allows it to be called that. But still, how would a plant grown in soil doused with pesticides be pesticide free?0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »emailmehere1122 wrote: »@stanmann571 The plant grows from the root...aka tuber...aka potato
The plant from the article you've cited isn't in the food supply. And thus is irrelevant to the discussion.
It never progressed beyond theoretical/initial test.
It did pass theoretical/initial test and how do you know whether or not it's in the food supply?
And it's not up to you what's relevant in this discussion
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 428 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions