Apparently, the possibility that food bought from local farmers who do not inundate the local environment with various hazardous chemicals might not be more nutritious, but merely wiser and better for other reasons, make some people angry - as if they were being cheated. ?
nasor said:
Personally I would be pretty surprised if organic food was more nutritious (why would it be? it's all the same plants),
I wouldn't, because the soil and micronutrient base (selenium, etc) is much different in a good organic operation.
ben said:
. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides. The caveat ``most'' really kills the pesticide argument.
No, it doesn't. You should pay some attention to which pesticides and herbicides (the omission of herbicides is a warning flag, usually means bs is being promulgated) are permitted, and what uses of them - it's a very short list, and the circumstances constrained.
ben said:
So 1% of organic food not only CONTAINS pesticides, but the levels exceed the government mandated maximum in Europe.
- - - - - -
After a single oral dose, the half-life of chlorpyrifos in the blood appears to be about 1 day [41].
”
So if you do happen to have a bit of it, it gets out of your system pretty quickly.
So there are clear benefits expected from a diet in which exposure to that stuff is intermittant and sparse, rather than every day and steady.
ben said:
Anyway, you will (of course) make your own conclusions from this, or wave your hands and change the subject. I will grant that pesticides do pose a health risk. That's why their use is regulated, and monitored. And that's why you wash the food that you get from the store, as most of these pesticides are water soluble.
Your washing will do you little good if the producer contamination has been applied intensively during growth, in the water or fertilizer supply, and incorporated into the food. Another benefit from organic stuff - the contamination is often windblown and otherwise sporadic, from outside the producer's control, and easier to wash off.
Meanwhile, your faith in the regulation and monitoring of pesticide
and herbicide application is not based on field observation, or investigations over the past few decades.
ben said:
you feel better buying your tomatoes from a farmer rather than a grocer, great
I pity people who buy tomatoes from supermarkets, in season.They are wasting their money - the difference is dramatic, and there's almost always a garden or farm source within reach.
ben said:
3.) `` It's sustainable, and when you buy organic food, you subsidize the kind of farming that will inevitably replace the petroleum-based methods used now.''
Sustainable for who? Can we feed 6 billion people with organically farmed produce?
Organic and other more sustainable farming often produces higher yields per acre, all else being equal and on average. That is especially true in years of bad weather, economic depression, etc. For example: The Amish are not going broke in droves, and their fields often match the conventional in yield - and outdo them in efficiency.
ben said:
Further, the USDA definition of ``organic'' doesn't preclude the use of pesticides:
The USDA is not the final authority here, especially after eight years of W&Co. The "definition" of organic has been a political catfight over the past few years, and the actual organic folks lost many battles. That does not affect the real issues here.
ben said:
The point of the article was that sometimes we fool ourselves into the fact that things ``taste better''. My guess is that you've never done a blind testing of your organic food versus non-organic food.
I have. The biggest differences are in local and garden vs chain supermarket - but there are noticeable differences in merely organic for some foods, such as milk, meat, and eggs. In other foods the difference can even favor the "conventional" - coffee, cheese, wine - but other factors apply, and I still buy organic or other politically correct whenever it seems reasonable.
One point: my farmer buys are often
less expensive than equivalent supermarket stuff - so any prestige from price would work against the "organic".
spider said:
corrected, much higher human population may in fact be sustainable, with the appropriate technology to sustain them of course.
”
I doubt it. Most of the best farmland is already in use. The appropriate (sustainable) technology results in decreased yields...
Not to despair - there are many advances and improvements available to the "organic" farmer, and more to come. The focus of modern research has been on the agenda of agribusiness, but that can change. For example, the researchers at the U of Minnesota think that conventional straight breeding or modified GM techniques (which are not all evil) could easily match the results of the hybrid research in corn and soybeans. The focus on hybrids is for corporations who wish to hold effectively enforceable patents on seeds. That can change.
General point: in all studies comapring "organic" with "conventional", if great care has not been taken to verify the "organic" nature of the actual study food the results are suspect. There is at least twice as much "organic" produce sold as is available from the total production of certified organic farmers. The higher prices involved are a great temptation.
Whenever possible, know your farmer
