Does anyone find it weird that pictures taken of the produce used in the blind study where done with different lighting or settings?
The bad ‘store-bought’ strawberries looks dark and dingy while the the good ‘locally-grown’ strawberries look vibrant and alive? Does this seem intentional or unintentional bias?
That is what I was going for.
If you look at the photos where both trays are shown, they look similar. Is suspect this is just a badly lit photo.
This, to me, is actually an odd statement, as I know more conservative types (like my parents) that buy organic foods, while I, (more liberal), don’t give a shit. Same with the GMOs. I’m very pro-GMO. They are not.
Yes, if we’re talking the top photos of "Strawberry X’ and “Strawberry Y,” they are clearly lit differently. You can’t make any judgement as to how red or vibrant they are in “real life” based on that photo. I’m speaking as a photographer here.
I’m a bit new to posting in GD, so I’m not sure how these threads go. So far in this thread, you’ve started issues on nutrition in organic vs. conventionally grown food, whether organic food is consumed by liberals vs. conservatives, whether organic food tastes better, whether the organic food issue is comparable to homeopathy, and now whether there are measurable differences between organic and “standard” food. I’m not sure which rabbit trail you want to meander down.
I’m not finding that very convincing. One of the main arguments against the organic food studies is that they’re biased. I’m not sure how they could be unbiased. Whoever pays for the study probably has a stake in how that study turns out. I’m finding the same problem with this video. It’s a satire about how the hippies who have a tent in their yard are spending all their money on frivolous organic food. Penn and Teller make money off it because they’re satirizing, so it’s entertaining. The sources in the piece are Hudson Institute, a conservative organization making fun of the hippies:
and Reason magazine:
It’s a very one-sided and hyperbolic satirizing view. It’s entertaining but not something I’d base my views on. It’s also pretty old. The publish date on the youtube says 2010. Since then, there have been a lot more studies done on organic food, distribution of organic food is much broader and the disparity in price is less pronounced because of the wider distribution. My evidence for that is that in 2014, Whole Foods is losing market share in the organic market as competitors are undercutting them in price for organic food.
My local (chain) supermarket has an organic produce section, and prices are still markedly higher than for non-organic produce.
Competition is just one factor in price of organic food. Costs (labor, fertilizer, annual certification fees) and lower productivity (among other things*) ensure that there’s a substantial premium to be paid for shopping organic.
*such as producers marking up their stuff simply because consumers perceive organic as “special” and are willing to pay more for it.
Somewhat related to the OP, from 538.com: Senate Control Could Come Down To Whole Foods vs. Cracker Barrel
This is really a flawed comparison. Homeopathy claims to have some result which can’t be substantiated.
Organically produced food doesn’t claim outlandish results at it’s core - it’s about a choice on how food is produced, animals treated, produce cultivated, and differences in stewardship of the earth. You may not care if a chicken is confined to a cage its entire life, or fed a mix of sustenance created for a specific purpose, but there is an actual difference in the scenario. Homeopathy creates no difference in outcome.
I was specifically meaning that if you grew a “Black Krim” tomato organically under optimal conditions and the same variety of tomato under optimal non-organic conditions, there would be precious little to distinguish them. They’d both probably taste great.
I think that’s one of the ways that the organic/conventional waters get muddied; the organic farmers frequently don’t grow conventional hybrids like BHN 444 or Celebrity, but rather grow good tasting but funky heirloom varieties like “Mortgage Lifter” or “Box Car Willie” that taste better, but aren’t quite so determinate (all ripen at the same time), or aren’t as resistant to disease, or don’t keep so long or whatever.
So a lot of people think “Organic = tastes better”, when in reality, it’s “heirloom = tastes better” (in some cases).
Or more broadly, “not factory farmed = tastes better” for a lengthy list of reasons.
I was just in the USA last month, and was in a Cracker Barrel restaurant/shop in Tennessee. Never in my life have I seen so much USA themed brick-a-brack. So I bough a red cap with a big US-flag on it, which I was very happy with. Especially when I turned it round and discovered it said Made in China with almost equally big and friendly letters.
I’ve put “blood diamonds” and non-“blood diamonds” side by side, and there was no difference at all in the way they looked!!! Did I just blow your mind?
Clearly, anyone who avoids “blood diamonds” is a liberal hippie homeopath who doesn’t even have a fantasy football team like a real man.
I was kind of thinking of my experiences in growing tomatoes in the backyard and having people gush about them and saying that they must be organic.
Which they weren’t; I usually use some slow-release fertilizer and if need be, fungicide to try and keep the early blight in check long enough to harvest. No real insect problems so far; just one time that required one spray.
The heirlooms I’ve grown actually have sucked. Low yield, little difference in taste. Bleh. The biggest difference for me is not the organic vs non-organic crap, either. It’s been in-season tomatoes grown locally and (relatively) naturally (that is, at their own pace, and picked at an appropriate time.) And the right varietals, too. When it’s a good tomato, you just wanna slice it up and eat it between a couple slices of toasted breaded (with some mayo, for me.) Or just on its own.
Yup - large scale commercial production will tend to favour traits like shelf life, uniformity of product, durability when processed and packed mechanically, predictability of cropping, etc - some of these are plainly antithetical to the traits commonly considered desirable to the consumer - some of them not in opposition, except by virtue of being a higher priority.
Also, there are cases where suboptimal conditions produce an aesthetically better crop (tomatoes may be tastier if the plants have suffered water stress - but the crop will be smaller - so in large scale commercial production, it doesn’t tend to happen)
I haven’t had much luck with heirlooms either, with one exception, and I’m not even really sure if they count as heirlooms.
THe “Porter” and “Improved Porter” tomato varieties do stellar in the Dallas area during the summers, which makes sense, because they were developed by a seed company in nearby Stephenville. They’re not hybrids, but they’re not really “heirlooms” either- they were developed in the 1950s, and are smaller tomatoes somewhere about the size of a golf ball.
I really think the “picked at an appropriate time” part is the most important. Even though you can pick tomatoes green and rock-hard, and they’ll eventually ripen indoors, they’re best if you pick them as ripe as possible from the plant.
IMHO, and somewhat witnessing here, it is not the nutrition nor the amount of ‘FDA ok’ed pesticide level’ but the amount of love that goes into the intent of such food. As such ‘organic’ worked once as a differentiator while thosepioneered the organic movement really cared about others. It was not that it was organic (but they may have needed it to me for their sake), but because they cared.
Now organic has created a high market and chasing the does not equate to caring so such organic is worth what the FDA says it is, about the exact same nutritional val value as other foods.
It is the love that goes into the product that matters, not the following rules and regulations. Organic used to mean something till it got regulated to the point that uncaring folks could make a buck off of it.
It is only love that matters
What will people eat when the love runs out?
(bolding mine)
I’m a progressive liberal, and I’m right there with you. Organic food is a waste of my money. And I couldn’t care less about GMOs either.