Organic Food

[boombexus]

Are you afraid of chemicals in your food???

No!

Do you only buy organic?

I never buy, or rather I should say, I never willingly persue buying, organic.

Did you know that organic food generally contains more bacteria and fewer nutrients.

Yes, organic food does contain more bacteria. However, you need to mention that 99% of all bacterias are harmless to humans.
The statement fails to say that there are more "harmfull" bacteria, which is what we really care about, in the plant.
Less nutrients? Of course! The nutrients are being forced in by the farming methods.
But we need to understand how this was tested. Organicly grown foods produce about 100% more yeild than foods grown in a "non-organic" way.
Meaning, there are 'x' amount of nutrients in a genetically altered plant, and that plant has a yield of 'y', an organicly grown plant have the same amount of nutrients,'x', but has a yeild of 'y' x 10, should it be the graded the same as a plant that has been force fed nutrients?

Did you know that it takes up more land on farms?

Yes, however, there is 2x as much food grown on an organic farm as opposed to a non-organic farm.
Organically grown foods generally produce 2 times the amount of non-organic foods.
Let's take lettuce for example. A head of Romaine Lettuce that is grown in a "non-organic" method is half the size of a head of Romaine Lettuce that is grown organically.
Please trust me on this because I know first hand as I am a Chef in the food industry. I've seen it. I've been to farms that are exclusively organic.
Also, those foods that are GM, are made to grow fast to cater to high demand. All these foods are that are GM are picked earlier than they naturally should be.

So, to say that it takes up more land, well, yes it does. If you were to compare the amount of plants planted, let's say a thousand heads of Romaine are planted on a non-organic farm, and a thousand heads of Romaine are planted on an Organic farm, the organic farm is going to be bigger due to the bigger size of their head of Romaine. Remember, a organic head of Romaine is about twice the size of a non-organic head of Romaine.

Did you know that the chemicals found in non-organic food won't hurt you, and that in most cases they are better for you?

Could you please lead me to some credible information that explains that chemicals, that are found "artificially" in foods, are better for you?
I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm just genuinely curious.

So it's not as good for you, it's not as good for the environemnt, and it cost more. Sounds like a marketing ploy to me.

Yes, in a way it IS a marketing ploy. The common folk here in the USA know NOTHING about how food is grown. But they do know, that certain chemicals can be bad for our health. This information gets translated through everyday life and can easily be attributed to our food sources. However misguided it may be, it still happens. So that means there will be those out there that think that fertelizers are bad, and they don't want it on their foods. Hence the market for "organic."
But I fail to understand, and I don't think you elaborated enough, as to how organically produced foods are not good for the environment.

Anyway, I'm not here to promote organically grown foods. I couldn't care less about them. To me, organically grown foods seem more like a trend than anything else. But, knowing some of the facts surounding organic foods, and then reading your statements above, I needed to respond.

Organic foods definately have their advantages. But I would like to add that a lot of the hoopla surrounding "organic" foods is hype geared towards the overconciouncess (sp?) and hippie/eco/granola crunching consumer.

 

[Danoff]

Could you please lead me to some credible information that explains that chemicals, that are found "artificially" in foods, are better for you?
I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm just genuinely curious

It's a grammar mistake on my part.

Did you know that the chemicals found in non-organic food won't hurt you, and that in most cases they are better for you?

The last "they" in this quote is referring to non-organic food, not chemicals.

But they do know, that certain chemicals can be bad for our health.

They know this or they think this? Can you prove this?

Here are some quotes from Stossel's book.

"Organic food is rarely 'pesticide-free.' Tests by Consumers Union and the U.S. Agriculture department found pesticide residue on organic food, too."

"... organic food is less likely to contain synthetic pesticide residues than regular produce is, but so what? Farmworkers and their children are exposed to much higher levels of pesticides, and they are as healthy as anyone else. Anyway, 99 percent of the pesticides we ingest are natural ones, produced by plants..."

"... bacteria are genuinely dangerous. last time you had the flu... it might have been E. coli or salmonella."

"The Centers for Diesase Control say every year thousands of Americans die from bacteria in food."

"... a third of the spouts and prebaggaged lettuce called spring mix had 'sewage contamination.' There was omre bacteria on the organic than on the nonorganic produce."

"This is not a huge deal. America's food supply, including organic food, is basically safe."

He quotes some guy who he quoted a lot in this section

"Agriculture takes a third of the earth's surface right now. If overnight all our food supply were sudenly organic, to feed today's population, we'd have plowed down half of the world's land area not under ice to get organic food."

Do you dispute that Boom?

 

[cardude2004]

I think it is still fine to eat regular foods. Even with chemicals. Other's aren't dying from them.

 

[boombexus]

They know this or they think this?

The "they" I refer to is the general public and I should have said "think."

"Organic food is rarely 'pesticide-free.' Tests by Consumers Union and the U.S. Agriculture department found pesticide residue on organic food, too."

Does Stossels book tell you exactly how much pesticides are found on organic foods?
But his statement is in essence true, although somewhat misleading, and organic foods do contain some synthetic pesticides. The foods usually accumulate these pesticides due to air pollution, soil contamination and natural rainfall.

"... organic food is less likely to contain synthetic pesticide residues than regular produce is, but so what? Farmworkers and their children are exposed to much higher levels of pesticides, and they are as healthy as anyone else.

Are they? How is that statement backed up by him? Are there any long term studies that we could take a look at to coroborate this?

Anyway, 99 percent of the pesticides we ingest are natural ones, produced by plants..."

So are the bacteria's that are mentioned below. The vast majority of bacteria pose no health risk to humans at all. It's that 1% that harm us.

"... bacteria are genuinely dangerous.

Not true. Everyone of us, at this very moment, have bacteria on our skin and in our bodies that are actually beneficial to us.
Like I mentioned earlier, 99% of all bacterias are harmless to humans. But it's that 1% we need to be careful of.

last time you had the flu... it might have been E. coli or salmonella."

Agreed.

"The Centers for Diesase Control say every year thousands of Americans die from bacteria in food."

True, but so what? What is his point, or yours, of stating this and how does it relate to organic foods?
Most food poisoning cases are caused by the food handler and not the foods themselfs.
Do you ever store raw chicken in your refrigerator above ready to eat foods? Do you ever cut vegtables on the same cutting board that you just prepared raw meat on? Most people do, as well as some in professional kitchens. It's people that fail to maintain safe food handling practices that cause themselfs, or others to get sick.

"... a third of the spouts and prebaggaged lettuce called spring mix had 'sewage contamination.' There was omre bacteria on the organic than on the nonorganic produce."

Was this bacteria of the harmfull type? Organic foods are fed with organic fertelizers. Do you know what most organic fertelizers are made of? Organic materials that contain bacterias and not synthetics.

The Marriott Corp. (The company I work for) has actually banned the use of sprouts in it's hotels due to the fact that they cannot be washed properly without destroying the product.
The main problem with the sprouts was found to be the workers out in the fields picking them.
When a worker out in the middle of a sprout field has to go to the bathroom, where do you think he/she goes? Do you think that they walk a mile and a half to the nearest facility? No, they relieve themselfs right there in the fields and contaminate the foods. At this point, it makes no difference whether the food was grown through organic methods or not.

"This is not a huge deal. America's food supply, including organic food, is basically safe."

Agreed.

He quotes some guy who he quoted a lot in this section


"Agriculture takes a third of the earth's surface right now. If overnight all our food supply were sudenly organic, to feed today's population, we'd have plowed down half of the world's land area not under ice to get organic food."

Do you dispute that Boom?

Yes and no.

It is true that organically grown foods yield less, which would mean larger farms to match the yields of conventional farming, but this is due in part by not being able to use synthetic chemicals to ward off damaging insects and disease. Although the above example is outlandish and not realistic, I think that it is esentially wrong. My reasoning for this is that if the world had to rely on organically grown foods only, then all available resources would be used to solve the problems that organic crops have today, and these problems would be solved in an organically approved way. Not by using synthetic pesticides that have potential health and environmental issues.

I'm not trying to advocate the use of organic foods nor am I trying to say that conventionally grown foods are bad for ones health. At this point in time, I couldn't care less how I get my food.
But if I really had to make a choice between the two farming methods that the world should use, I would chose organic.

The basic intention of organically grown foods, is for the health of the environment as well as humans.

The principal guidelines for organic production are to use materials and practices that enhance the ecological balance of natural systems and that integrate the parts of the farming system into an ecological whole.
The organic foods movement promotes the health of humans and their environment by encouraging farmers to use agricultural methods that neither deplete the soil nor hurt environmental systems or farmworkers. Organic farming also promotes biological diversity and the recycling of resources through such methods as crop rotation, rotational grazing, planting of cover crops, intercropping, animal and plant waste recycling, tilling, and adding minerals to crops.

The jury is still out on what the long term effects of pesticides and other chemicals that are used in conventional farming, have on the human body. They may or may not be harmful to us, but should we be taking that chance anyway?
It's already fairly obvious as to the effects these chemicals and pesticides have had on us and our environment, (DDT), shouldn't we try to change this before irreperable damage is done?


Here is an interesting little factoid:

"Conventional farming uses more petroleum than any other industry and consumes almost 12% of the United States energy supply."

 

[Duke]

In regards to your factoid, while it is interesting, the actualy mechanics of tilling, fertilizing, and reaping don't change from organic to synthetic farming (unless you are discussing hydroponic farming, which we aren't). Therefore both methods will consume the same amount of petroleum.

 

[milefile]

And beasts of burden fart methane into the atmosphere. We really should just stop eating to save the earth.

 

[K_Speed]

I was looking at a new album cover from a band wich just realesed an album in Europe and Asia. Itll be sold in the us in a month or something, and it sais the "parental adivsory" on it. It just made me think, how stupid it is to do that. Theres no bad lyrics in at all only "lick it once, lick it twice", ok, whats my point?

Why should they put parental advisory stickers on music cds and not on junk food? I mean, what is more dangerous? Did you ever take a look around u? Ever seen how overwieght most people in the US are? They should put parental on McDonalds and Burger King etc. I mean whats more "harmfull", Totally fatened food are the word "****"? What kills more? what causes more depression?

I mean are explict lyrics so bad for the population? or explict food? I mean the little kids out there will learn those wordsin 1st grade anyways.




was just a though I had

 

[Danoff]

Are they? How is that statement backed up by him? Are there any long term studies that we could take a look at to coroborate this?

You're lawyering the material - which, I guess, is fair... but it also means that I can't say anything without doing more research and providing more references than I care to find. Let me put it this way, I have heard nothing about farmers getting sick and dying young due to exposure to pesticides. You can pick at that statement but the concept holds.

So are the bacteria's that are mentioned below. The vast majority of bacteria pose no health risk to humans at all. It's that 1% that harm us.

I don't disagree and I think Stossel even said something to that effect.

True, but so what? What is his point, or yours, of stating this and how does it relate to organic foods?

The point is that bacteria, from whatever source, is potentially dangerous. So we should be taking steps to protect ourselves from that rather than trying to protect ourselves from something we don't know is dangerous.

The basic intention of organically grown foods, is for the health of the environment as well as humans.

I don't care about the intentions, I care about the outcome.

The organic foods movement promotes the health of humans and their environment by encouraging farmers to use agricultural methods that neither deplete the soil nor hurt environmental systems or farmworkers

Depleating their resources or hurting their farmworkers would hurt business, so who cares if they use synthetic or organic methods to accomplish that?

They may or may not be harmful to us, but should we be taking that chance anyway?

This is exactly the kind of statement that really gets me riled up. Think about the fact that people could have said this about any technology at any point along the line. The fact of the matter is that tachnology has increased our lifespan and made us safer than we have ever been in the history of our existance. I think it's silly to claim that we shouldn't take a chance and learn how to better care for ourselves. If you look at our track record you'll see that merchants very rarely do things that are not in the interest of safety.

What if people had said that about a small pox vaccine or electricity?

My answer is "YES" we should take that chance, because it has already paid off bigtime.

It's already fairly obvious as to the effects these chemicals and pesticides have had on us and our environment, (DDT), shouldn't we try to change this before irreperable damage is done?

The only thing I find obvious is the fact that we provide more food today for more people on less land than we ever could have without putting our minds to work finding "synthetic" solutions to our problems. I find it obvious that we are healthier (living longer) that ever before and food is cheap. I find it obvious that synthetic chemicals (DDT) have increadible benefits to humanity and that our fear of them is ludicrous. That doesn't mean that I'm going to go swimming in DDT, but the fact of the matter is that DDT could prevent thousands upon thousands of deaths from malaria in Africa but the US refuses to use it in our aide of Africa because of one reason and one reason only - public opinion.

 

[millencolin]

im not afraid of chemicals in my food. my body is used to it

my parents though are going through their 'health kick' and are buyiong all organic food. everything is organic. if it isnt organic, its reduced fat. but i stood my ground, i refuse to have low fat milk, yuk, has to be full cream

 

[Danoff]

bump

 

[Swift]

Danoff is officially in the thread resurrection business.

 

[smellysocks12]

The whole idea about chemical = bad, is stupid. With chemicals you know exactly what is in there, with organic food it is always the question how much of this is in it. You might buy organic oranges and think you're eating healthy, while there actually isn't any vitamin c in it left, because they have been in a warehouse for over a month.


I'm not a fan of genetic manipulation myself, but as long as it is properly tested I don't see a problem in it. Just so it is to make the product more functional. Once they start manipulating oranges to make them purple, is when I have a problem with it.

 

[FoolKiller]

My wife took me to an organic food store once and I decided that it was all overpriced and no better tasting than anything in teh grocery. My wife agreed.

It is all her grandparents will eat and her parents are beginning to get that way.

I see no problem with foods that have been altered and approved by the FDA, especially if they are tastier or more plentiful.

 

[Kylehnat]

I'm not heavily opinionated either way on this subject. My parents buy a lot of organic food (mainly produce and milk). I must say that the organic milk they have is a little better tasting than normal milk, but I was shocked to see that it costs about 3-4 times as much. I can't afford to pay 5 dollars for a half-gallon of organic, especially when I can pay 2 dollars for a gallon of store-brand milk.

I don't really get the hubbub about organic food, though. As Famine mentioned, it's not too hard to get "organic" labels and slap them on your product. People don't understand the processes that make our food. Every "evil" that goes into making food is designed to make our food better and safer. It's not a government ploy to control our minds.

 

[Swift]

It reminds me of the Atkins craze. If it's going to cost me 1.5 times as much for less food that doesn't taste as good. But I may live a few more months...Yeah, I'm going to take the money I save buying the "regular" food and go on a vacation and enjoy the short time that I have.

 

[Young_Warrior]

My wife took me to an organic food store once and I decided that it was all overpriced and no better tasting than anything in teh grocery. My wife agreed.

It is all her grandparents will eat and her parents are beginning to get that way.

I see no problem with foods that have been altered and approved by the FDA, especially if they are tastier or more plentiful.

I think young people have a harder time telling a difference between foods but organic food is ment to make old people feel physically better.

I can tell the difference between organic and non organic food on only a few products but my mum doesnt mind paying a little extra for the stuff. As I understand it in America you have to go to special shops to get the stuff whilst our supermarkets are filled with it. More and more stuff is going organic.

 

[Famine]

I'm not a fan of genetic manipulation myself, but as long as it is properly tested I don't see a problem in it. Just so it is to make the product more functional. Once they start manipulating oranges to make them purple, is when I have a problem with it.

Come off it. How frickin' cool would it be to have a fruitbasket of purple oranges?

And what would you call them? They can't be oranges, because they aren't orange. Would they be purples?

 

[Duke]

As I understand it in America you have to go to special shops to get the stuff whilst our supermarkets are filled with it.

Look, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, why don't you just stop talking about what it's like in America? You honestly have no idea about the subject.

My grocery store, a large but unexceptional supermarket that is part of a regional chain, stocks plenty of Certified Organic products, including fruits, vegetables, meats, and dairy products. I could by the bulk of my perishables in Certified Organic if I wished to without changing my shopping habits one bit.

 

[Young_Warrior]

Oh really. Well maybe in your part of the US but just the other day I was watching a documentary about british teens staying at a texan uni for a semester and for some extra money one of the girls helped out at a organic food market and she said unlike in the UK were we have a really wide range of organic food its not really the same in the US. So pardon me if I was wrong.

 

[Duke]

Any town of reasonable size will have several organic/whole foods specialty shops, and most normal supermarkets also offer organic selections. Depending on the size of the supermarket chain, the selections can be quite extensive.

My point is that you have quite limited and inaccurate knowledge of the US, and you certainly don't live here, yet you frequently spout nonsense about what America and Americans are like.

Note that I'm not telling you what England is like, though I've been there a few times and I'm familiar with the culture and history.

 

[Danoff]

Oh really. Well maybe in your part of the US but just the other day I was watching a documentary about british teens staying at a texan uni for a semester and for some extra money one of the girls helped out at a organic food market and she said unlike in the UK were we have a really wide range of organic food its not really the same in the US. So pardon me if I was wrong.

There are stores that specialize in organic products here, but many of the large grocery stores (even in Texas) stock the same overpriced, undersized, bacteria-infected, organic food that the specialty stores do - just not necessarily as much.

 

[Famine]

Any town of reasonable size will have several organic/whole foods specialty shops, and most normal supermarkets also offer organic selections. Depending on the size of the supermarket chain, the selections can be quite extensive.

My point is that you have quite limited and inaccurate knowledge of the US, and you certainly don't live here, yet you frequently spout nonsense about what America and Americans are like.

Note that I'm not telling you what England is like, though I've been there a few times and I'm familiar with the culture and history.

Interestingly, he also tells people what London is like. I've spent some considerable time in London and it's nothing like his description - but then again, I recognise that London is a melting-pot and no two neighbouring boroughs necessarily bear any relation to each other.

 

[Young_Warrior]

Yep just look at southwark compared to some of its neighboring boroughs. Its described as full of poverty such as the tower of hamlets.

I have been to the US btw. I have family over there too.

Plus I never said america was anything. I stated "as I understand it" meaning "I might be wrong but as far as I know.."

 

[Swift]

Plus I never said america was anything. I stated "as I understand it" meaning "I might be wrong but as far as I know.."

Funny how you say that after you were refuted by a few members. You could've said that in your original reply instead of using the obviously biased report from some british transfer students.

 

[Young_Warrior]

That was what I was saying obviously meaning what I learnt from the documentary was wrong...

 

[smellysocks12]

It keeps on surprising me how a select hand full of Americans here immediately jump onto it like it was a personal attack whenever someone places a generalizing comment about their country, which is obviously based on reality and doesn't have to apply to every single American.

 

[Swift]

It keeps on surprising me how a select hand full of Americans here immediately jump onto it like it was a personal attack whenever someone places a generalizing comment about their country, which is obviously based on reality and doesn't have to apply to every single American.

America is far to diverse to put any one stereotype, especially something like the availibility of organic foods, across the entire country. Well, maybe accept for the fact that we're an instant society.

BTW, if you want to talk about this, take it to the appropriate thread. Thanks.

 

[smellysocks12]

America is far to diverse to put any one stereotype, especially something like the availibility of organic foods, across the entire country. Well, maybe accept for the fact that we're an instant society.

BTW, if you want to talk about this, take it to the appropriate thread. Thanks.

No I definitely don't want to talk about this, but any country is too diverse to make accurate stereotypes... except for maybe North Korea.


Sometimes stereotypes have to be made because that makes it easier to discuss problems and at times it's simply entertaining.


To keep this on topic, soy milk is disgusting.

 

[F1GTR]

To keep this on topic, soy milk is disgusting.

Chocolate soy milk isn't; it covers up the taste!

I was allergic to milk when I was a baby, so I'm used to soy milk.

 

[smellysocks12]

Chocolate soy milk isn't; it covers up the taste!

I was allergic to milk when I was a baby, so I'm used to soy milk.

Yeah, I tried it. I like some with flavors, the ones with chocolate and banana flavour aren't that bad. I nearly had to puke when trying it without any flavour and the ones with yoghurt/peach I tried was gross as well.


It probably is more healthy that regular milk, but I don't really like it as much.