Should I be eating organic food? I tend to think it is mostly bullshit, especially the GMO and commercial fertilizer prohibitions. On the other hand, I don’t want my veggies soaked in pesticides either. The question is whether the allowed amount of pesticide residues are harmful. I haven’t seen any studies on this.
I think this thread fits a bit better in Cafe Society. Relocated from IMHO.
I disagree that this belongs in Cafe Society. Why would it be there? People are being asked their opinion.
Cafe Society is full of threads asking people for their opinions. Questions that are specifically focused on food often wind up in this forum. I don’t think having it in here is going to hurt your odds of getting on-point responses, but if this is still an issue in a day, we can certainly revisit moving it back to IMHO.
Organic food is often “soaked in pesticides,” it’s just organic pesticides instead. There is no empirical evidence that organic food is better for you. On the other hand, sometimes the quality is higher as more care and money is sunk into producing the food, or there is less of an impetus to make food that is aesthetically pleasing but flavorless like in non-organic foods (I hear this about tomatoes).
It’s better for the PLANET. That’s why you should eat it. Fuck you and your lil’ body.
Yes, all the food you eat should be primarily composed out of organic compounds providing the necessary macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, vitamins) was well as the necessary bionutritional metallic compounds like sodium, potassium, phosphorus, zinc, et cetera, necessary for various metabolic processes.
If you are asking if you should eat food labeled “Organic” be advised that there is no such formal designation or standard, and many supposed organic foods are grown with pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. (In fact, most common fertilizers used in agriculture are synthesized to obtain high densities of plant nutrients and reduce the incidence of plant-borne pathogens from animal manure fertilizer.)
The development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is essentially unregulated, and there is some small validity to the concern that the combination of genes from various sources that would never be joined or hybridized in the wild could introduce a novel immunoresponse or allergy, but to date there is no firm evidence than any GMO product has demonstrated harm for human consumption, and those risks exist with interbreeding plants as well. The larger danger with GMOs is actually a legal one; that by patenting a specific gene or novel genetic combination a producer could obtain an effective monopoly over a crop and enforce legal strictures (as Monsanto has done). Another practical danger is monocropping, which could result in large scale crop failures in the case of an effective parasite or pathogen.
There are plenty of studies on the effects of pesticides, but little that is definitive in general, and it is essentially impossible to grow sufficient crops to support large populations without using pesticides, and many edible plants produce their own natural pesticides, so talking generically about “pesticides” is not very meaningful. You are best off eating whole foods which are appropriately washed, cleaned, and hygienically prepared. If you grow your own you can have full knowledge over what pesticides or fertilizers are used, but in pretty much any other case you just won’t know and can’t control this, so like flying in an airliner, you kind of have to accept that it is out of your control
Stranger
It would be even better for the planet to have fewer people on it. So one really should be eating organophosphates to do their little part to help the planet.
But, what about the woo? If it makes people feel better, why shouldn’t they pay more for the same thing.
You’re in the US, right? The USDA has such a standard.
That article is very disappointing due to biased, non-factual claims like this:
It is common for pesticides to be used in commercial organic operations, The only difference is that they must be derived from natural sources and synthetically manufactured.
Two of the common “organic” products used are rotenone and pyrethrin and they require half a dozen applications when the “synthetically manufactured” options only require two.
To be clear I would be on board if there was empirical evidence but the “Organic” industry has actually fought efforts to test their pesticides and products like rotenone and pyrethrin are well known to cause serious problems with wildlife and aquatic ecosystems.
If you look at labels for “Organic” pesticides you will notice
“Use with caution. The toxicological effects of $name are largely unknown”
“Its persistence in the soil is unknown.”
This is similar to the issue with other “woo” industries like CAM, where because it is “natural” the products don’t need to be tested for safety or long term effects.
“Good” rotenone http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/pyrethrins-ziram/rotenone-ext.html
“Bad” Imidan http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/metiram-propoxur/phosmet-ext.html
While I truly believe that people intended well with the “Organic” label that the system was gamed in a way that it really means that you may be paying more for a product that may use an increased number of chemicals with a known environmental impact that lasts for an unknown amount of time and which is far more dangerous to humans than the products created through the use of science.
I’m hoping this statement is a form of parody.
On the chance that it isn’t, it should be noted that it’s dubious to say the least to argue that organic farming (and especially its adoption on a much wider scale) is good for the planet. Less efficient farming means that a great deal more land needs to be brought into cultivation to produce the same amount of food - which means lots of environmental degradation as wild land is sacrificed for this purpose.
There’s considerable evidence that many organic pesticides are as harmful or even more so than their non-organic counterparts.*
As for GMO foods (which irrationally are officially considered non-organic), many respected scientific groups (such as an expert panel of the National Academy of Sciences which recently issued a comprehensive study) and regulatory agencies (including the European Food Safety Authority) have found that there is zero evidence of any health risk associated with consuming these foods.
This is a load of organic fertilizer, seeing that “an effective monopoly” actually means “a crop variety that is popular among farmers because it is dependable and makes them money”. There is no legal stricture whatsoever to prevent farmers from buying any variety of corn, soybeans etc. that they want, and in the case of open-pollinated non-patented crops**, saving seed and replanting indefinitely. Most don’t do that because it’s economically non-viable for them.
My own reluctance to buy organic food stems from high cost (up to 2x more for some products) for no demonstrated health benefit. And there’s also the little matter of disease outbreaks and recalls associated with some organic foods. Obviously, you can get sick from eating traditionally-grown produce as well, but eating organic is just as obviously not a magic bullet for protecting oneself.
*I do a lot of semi-organic gardening (ornamental and vegetable) and try to avoid any pesticide that carries risk to beneficial critters and myself. That includes unnecessary application of organic and synthetic pesticides, especially wide-spectrum ones.
**those who wail about Monsatan and its horrific “legal strictures” seem unaware that non-GMO patented plant varieties have been around for a long time and there are potential legal consequences for growing/selling them without paying the patent holder.
There is no way that 7-billion lil’ bodies can be fed in strict compliance with organic criteria. Organic is for the yuppies. So fuck the 5- or 6-billion who don’t have the resources to buy two-dollar shade-grown bananas, right?
In other words, I’m a yuppie, get off my planet, unless you’re a hunter-getherer who will feed me.
Organic farming means that any specific farm can support dozens of people instead of thousands.
Lots of hyperbole there (a shadowy “stranger” threatens a store owner? Impressive proof), a severe deficiency of substance.
While big corporations in general can be ruthless about protecting their interests, it’s a myth that Monsanto goes after small farmers whose fields are accidentally “contaminated” with GM crops (I haven’t seen a single lawsuit of this nature). Percy Schmeisser became a folk hero to anti-GMOers after the company went after him. However he was far from an injured innocent - he deliberately collected genetically modified seed and planted a large crop in an attempt to profit from Monsanto technology without troubling to get a license. He lost his case.
The fact remains that if farmers want to plant (for example) Bloody Butcher or Golden Bantam corn (open-pollinated so seed can be saved and will produce the same crop year after year) they can do it without interference from any corporation. If they choose instead to plant the latest hybrid (GMO or non-GMO), there are voluntary restrictions on what they can do.
Here’s what Norman Borlaug (father of the Green Revolution) had to say about agriculture technophobes:
“Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They’ve never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. They have never produced a ton of food. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 60 years, they’d be crying out for fertilizer, herbicides, irrigation canals and tractors and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things.”
Borlaug was responding to criticism of his non-organic methods (involving use of fertilizer and pesticides), not addressing GMOs. But the same elitism pervades the anti-GMO movement, as well-fed critics denounce the use (and marked success) of GM crops in developing countries.
This seems to be a grossly ignorant exaggeration of the productivity discrepancies between organic and conventional agriculture. It also doesn’t take into account the differences in their impacts on soil, water and biodiversity. Remember, the relative ability of agriculture techniques to “feed the world” depends not just on how much crop yield can be extracted from a given field in a given year, but also on how long the local ecosystem can survive and sustain that agriculture.
As this 2012 article in Nature discusses,
At the risk of straying further into GD territory here, I’ll emphasize that I don’t consider organic agriculture a cure-all for all environmental ills or an economically viable strategy for all human food requirements in our current setup. But it seems pretty clear that the posturing “realists” who hyperbolically sneer at organic agriculture as nothing but an extravagantly wasteful boutique farming method for a tiny minority of elites are at least as ill-informed and far off the mark as the crunchy hipsters who insist that we must all switch to organic immediately to avoid the imminent destruction of the planet.
Yes. Including that dreadful dihydrogen monoxide.
[Moderating]
Ukulele Ike, telling another poster “fuck you” is not allowed on this board at all, not even in the Pit (which we are not). The only reason you’re not getting an official Warning right now is because I think that you’re intending that post as mockery of what an excessively-zealous organic advocate would say, not as your own statement. Even if that’s the case, this isn’t the place for that sort of mockery. So consider this a very strong Moderator Note.