organic food?

another liberal democrat LIE exposed

msnbc.msn.com/id/32205139/ns … nutrition/

from the horse’s mouth

organic food is no better than regularly produced food.

-Imp

What amazes me is that people were convinced it was in the first place, as if somehow the genetic nature of food was enhanced by magic. :confused:

People fall foul of the placebo effect, if you’re paying more for something it must taste better or be better for you or something. It isn’t its just less harmful for the environment generally, and also in the case of animals they weren’t locked away in unnatural conditions or mistreated and that’s it. Saying that, buying meat from a butchers that’s been properly hung, cut and prepared instead of whisked off and packaged and on the supermarket shelf before the cows head hit the ground does make it taste better at least. Then you really are paying more for something, but being organic either way probably makes little difference.

I’m pretty sure the reason people eat organic is not because they think it holds more nutrition, but because they think it doesn’t have chemicals in it and doesn’t leave chemicals in the environment. The idea is that if you have a choice between beef with growth hormone and beef without growth hormone you opt for the one without it even if it means paying a little more. The same goes with pesticides ect. In fact I’ve never heard someone claim that organic food was more nutritious, and I know several people who eat it.

I think some people who eat organic food have some vague notion that it is better food. More nutritious? Maybe not.

But I think it’s part of an overall, if ill-defined, sentiment against corporate industrialism. I have friends who drive a Saturn, because they think it was a small, independent company, don’t have a microwave oven, because they think it’s “bad” (I have never gotten straight answer as to how or why it’s bad), and make sure their coffee is “fair trade”. And yes, they are flaming liberals.

They do think that every large corporation is evil by definition. And they see their use of organic food as morally superior to the use of agribusiness products. I think it’s this moral issue they focus on, and not really the nutrition aspect.

Buying organic food is part of an overall lifestyle choice. I don’t understand why people think it’s odd. Sittlichkeit is correct about why people choose to eat organic food, and Faust is also right that there is an anti-corporate aspect to it for many people.

Public health? A “Roundup-ready” world is not a world I want to live in. What a crock of shit. This is blind-eye reductionism taken to its most absurd extremes.

sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti … ontroversy

ddt for everyone!

-Imp

Have you guys ever been in a whole foods, they sell some crazy shit. For example, last time I went in I bought some sparkling lavender water, and naturally the cashier felt a connection to me in that I had a “good energy” when I paid for the damn thing. On my way out I noticed that 1/4 of the store was filled with indoor picnic tables. Since there was no buffet or fast food of any kind I can only assume that it was a community meeting place. And I got hit on by no less than 3 cougars. You know, since whole foods can generally only exist in affluent parts of town it necessarily attracts stay at home wifes looking to get on a politically minded 20 something.
Anyway, when I finally made it out of this bizzaro world I popped open a bottle of lavender water and it was the most abysmal throat drying flower beverage I have ever had. It was like I was drinking the inside wall of a walnut shell.

Did I mention I saw more Mormons than liberals.

You should of said well that’s funny because you killed someone only this morning and only came into town to buy some tools to dispose of the body and are thus surprised that your chakras are still in alignment.

Sittlichkeit: Did I mention I saw more Mormons than liberals."

K: ummmm, how does one identify Mormons? I mean do they have a special code word,
a secret handshake, or is the word Mormon stapled on their forehead?
If I were to go around identifying Mormons, where would I go, to “whole paychecks”?
Is that their secret hangout? A whole new world to discover, the magic world of mormons
and where they hangout.

Kropotkin

You can tell, in this particular instance, by their austere garb that allows for their sacred undergarments to not be exposed. You see a 40 something in a flowing dress with a large family shopping at whole foods and there is a level of certainty within you when you think to yourself “goddamn mormons”.

There is controversy about what these undergarments are, but I gaurantee you that if you had the not so fortuitous chance to lift a mormon dress you would not be greeted by gods nipples, but by masonic images.

cough

Whilst I agree the point about organic food is not the ‘quality’ of the end result; that buying it is often about selecting a means of production that someone finds more morally acceptable, either from an animal welfare standpoint, or from an anti-corporate agenda for example, I’m sure there are many more.

However Imp, whilst I am not an advocate for organic food, you are misusing the science here, to quote the actual report:

“In conclusion, because of the limited and highly variable data available, and concerns over the reliability of some reported findings, there is currently no evidence of a health benefit from consuming organic compared to conventionally produced foodstuffs. It should be noted that this conclusion relates to the evidence base currently available on the nutrient
content of foodstuffs, which contains limitations in the design and in the comparability of studies.”

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What if they systematically chose 162 papers for their “review” that intentionally tried to disprove the benefits of organic foods? What if there were actually 500 studies, 340 of which stated health benefits and 160 that didn’t? And what if all of those studies were funded by Monsanto or pharmaceutical companies? A lot of the specifics are left out in this story, and I know there’s at least one study that they missed (I’m sure there are more, but I don’t feel like looking them up right now):

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u … 753446.ece

Companies FUND studies, those studies ARE STILL subject to peer review. Plenty funded studies are accurate, some aren’t. My point is studies are judged on their merits not on who funds them. Drug companies fund studies, plenty of the resulting medication works. The ones which are claimed to work but don’t get ripped off the market, sooner or later.

Whether organic food studies are funded by corporate interests is irrelevant IF the science/evidence is there. Organic foods aren’t healthier, many are grown in literal shit or use “healthier” chemical fertilizers (which aren’t healthier) and it can’t compete against genetically engineered foods, organic crops can only feed about 4 billion people (according to the late Norman Bourlog and anyone else whose seriously entertained feeding the hungry).

Not healthier, lower yields, its hard to trust that the little man won’t cut corners to compete with big business.

Personally I eat some organic food grown locally, I can’t get yellow tomatoes etc outside of locally grown. They’re actually great… tasting.

Faust: Microwaves might be unhealthy.

Cyrene: I will concede that. I just haven’t seen any credible evidence for that.

But to your larger point - all peers are not created equal. We mustn’t pretend that these “peers” are not just as influenced by commercial interests as those they review.

Sometimes very much later.

I don’t think the OP disagrees with what you are saying, though.

And neither do I, in the main.

Yeah, I agree that 1. peers can be bought 2. peer review doesn’t make something a fact and that because of corporate interests resuls can be swept under the rug.

My main point is that corporate funding of research can and does routinely produce “unbiased” (of corporate interest) results, and when the results are biased meta analysis can clear that up. Like effexor was hugely a corporate interest but eventually researchers used some of the funded research to show that these new classes of antidepressants don’t meet clinical significance.

funded research doesn’t invalidate high quality science, when the research standards fall due to bribery or etc that can show, usually does upon enough peer review. You can’t buy all scientists.

Like 100+ studies on the nutritional content of organic vs non-organic, that shit would be hard to skew against organic foods because its testable by so many people who can blow your claims out of the water, fairly quick.

Even still, I think theres a small place for organic foods at least in some locations. I get a variety of foods from the store locally grown, our stores realize people will pay more for locally grown or made foods. The local honey, tomatoes even berries are delicious. Do I trust that they are safer? Less chemicals? Not at all.

I really think that to compete they’ll throw whatever it takes on their organic crops. Still, fresh haddock or salmon fillets requires a diced yellow tomato or two. My hands are tied.

Tomatoes are often ripened artificially too, destroys some* taste. These yellows though… MAGIC.

Could it perhaps be argued that organic foods, regardless of their small share, help elevate prices by reducing crop yields and by proxy, help starving people stay that way?

Maybe organic food ain’t so bad:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/6227745/Fruit-and-veg-have-unacceptable-levels-of-pesticides.html