The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Ask a Mustachian => Topic started by: firelight on June 02, 2015, 12:32:44 PM
-
We recently started looking into buying only organic foods (earlier, we used to buy some of the dirty dozen organic and the rest as non organic). Even the cheapest source of food (farmers market) seems to balloon our food budget. Our most convenient (whole foods or trader Joe's) tripled our food budget. We eat at home 95% of the time and eat a variety of food. My husband thinks the organic expense is worth the benefits but I'm shocked by the cost difference. Is organic really worth the cost difference? What are your tips for saving money when you buy organic produce?
We live in an apartment and recently had a baby, so gardening and raising animals is out of question.
-
No.
Well, at least not in Canada. My dad's a farmer, and he produces organic soy beans. The testing to ensure that something is certified organic is done by a for profit company that the farmer who wants the certification pays. There's no real reason for a certifier to crack down on a farmer (would piss off their employer). The whole thing works on the honor system.
I can guarantee you that much of the stuff labelled 'organic' is identical to the regular produce sold.
-
No. Absolutely not.
-
Not really.
Also trying to frame your buying patterns off of a cutsy internet list is a little silly. Here is some information on the dirty dozen - http://vitals.lifehacker.com/why-you-shouldnt-buy-organic-based-on-the-dirty-dozen-1689190822
-
Veggies- Nah.
Fruits- depends on the item. Organic pears were on sale to match prices with non organic, and they were much riper and juicier than a different variety.(includes tomatoes; in apts they have those upside down pot thingies for fresh toms, or you can just put dirt in a rubbermaid bin, and make it a giant pot to grow your own, but organic from the vine= yummy!)
Breadly goods-better by far if you make them yourself, not worth $$ for "organic" flours.
Meats- Chicken thus far has proven much more tasty when purchased FREE RANGE ORGANIC (not "NATURAL"- still advertise that they feed the birds corn and soybeans; big clue for not as tasty) Also, Free range implies less antibiotics. Yay!
I haven't experimented much with pork or beef (free range/grass fed) yet, but these taste better from smaller butcheries ($$$), as they only use 1-5 beasts in the grinder rather than 20-100.
-
Try going to farmers markets, much cheaper prices there.
-
I buy organic when I can, but conventional for things that are far more expensive. We get a CSA ($20 a week), so the bulk of the veggies we eat each week are locally produced and pesticide free. While I would like to limit my exposure to pesticides, my motivation for buying organic is for environmental rather than health reasons, because I am worried about declines in bee populations and water pollution due to pesticide run-off and the health of the workers who apply pesticides, especially when the veggies come from other countries with less health and safety regulations. So I do what I can when it won't break then bank.
-
I've found that my local farmers market is usually cheaper than the non-organic produce at the grocery store. But if that's not the case for you, I'd just identify the specific fruits and veggies where you can taste the difference and only buy those organic. For instance, I find organic carrots to be infinitely superior to non-organic grocery store carrots, but I can't taste any difference in organic vs non-organic potatoes.
-
I think this is an important question that can require some research and also some reflecting on your personal values, as well as your immediate priorities. There aren't easy answers, and the more you learn, the less clear some aspects will be. :)
Some benefits of organic produce/foods:
* non-GMO
* less environmental pollution and damage (though this can still be considerable, depending on the product)
* possibly less pesticide exposure depending on the individual food
These may or may not be priorities for you and your family. Notice that nutritional value is not on my list here. There are a lot of things that go into the nutritional value of a food. In my mind, freshness is the most important, followed by the soil health that the produce was grown in. Organic can have (but doesn't necessarily) better soil health, and may or may not be fresher. I don't buy the bell peppers that get shipped here from Israel in December, for instance, but I will happily buy the non-organic hothouse ones that are grown around here from March to October.
Personally, I would stick with seasonal eating first (for freshness), and then try to find sources of food in your area from farmers who are using organic or better (grass-fed, free-range meats for instance) methods, but who aren't certified organic. These types of sources tend to get you out of the industrial food industry quickly, and get you the most bang for your buck. Buy in bulk when you can; look for buying co-ops in your area. Watch grocery store prices and buy organic when it makes sense: when veggies and fruits are in season, there's often not too much of a price difference between organic and non.
Then let yourself off the hook. There is no perfect in this area; all of us are making the best decisions we can, and our economics and local resources are a part of those decisions. In my experience, getting too fixated on food rules is crazy-making.
-
My take is there is probably some benefit to it. But, before one takes the plunge, do my checklist:
1. Am I a healthy weight?
2. Do I NOT smoke?
3. Do I get at least 7 hours of sleep?
4. Is my cholesterol ok?
5. Is my blood pressure ok?
6. Do I do appropriate cancer screenings?
7. Do I get regular exercise?
8. Do I NOT drink excessively?
9. Is my stress level under control?
If no, fix above, and don't waste your money on organic until you do. If yes to all of the above and you would like to try to take your health to a higher level (questionably), then:
Would organic fit into my budget? If yes, go for it!
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
It's a benefit if you don't understand science.
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
Spending more money to ensure food is produced less efficiently is good way to pretend you care about the environment while ensuring invisible poor people suffer.
-
Yes! Hell yes!
It is most definitely worth it. Problem is that I can't wrap my head around it on a cost basis, so I just don't do it.
Grass fed organic meat definitely beats the heck out of Confined Animal Feeding Operation industrial meat.
In your non organic meat you will find antibiotics, weird drugs, all sorts of "cides", artificial hormones and the fat profile doesn't even resemble real food.
Wish I weren't such a short sighted cheap ass!
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
Geez, folks. It's a benefit if you care about GMOs. Not everyone does. Not trying to make a political statement; it's just a reason why some people choose organic. Note that my list of benefits is *intended* to be questionable; the whole point of my post is that these are personal decisions that have research on either side and the territory is murky. Some people put GMOs into that category. YMMV.
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
It's a benefit if you don't understand science.
Perfect response!
-
Yes! Hell yes!
It is most definitely worth it. Problem is that I can't wrap my head around it on a cost basis, so I just don't do it.
Grass fed organic meat definitely beats the heck out of Confined Animal Feeding Operation industrial meat.
In your non organic meat you will find antibiotics, weird drugs, all sorts of "cides", artificial hormones and the fat profile doesn't even resemble real food.
Wish I weren't such a short sighted cheap ass!
To get the Organic certification it states that animals must be provided access to the outdoors. It does not define for how long, frequency, or how large the space outdoors will be. Your Organic certified meat can be just as confined with five minute exposure to sunlight. Unless you've met Bessie yourself and seen her conditions you have no clue if your organic meat is any better.
You are right about antibiotics and hormones.
-
I think the answer to that depends on what kind of world you want future generations to inherit. I am mildly concerned about ingesting pesticides while still (hopefully) in my childbearing years, but that's not why I buy organic. I buy organic because I've seen firsthand what happens when rivers and coastal ocean waters are poisoned by an abundance of nitrates, phosphates, etc. When we are talking about waterway and ocean health, we are talking about 1/3 of the world's food supply. And that's not even taking into account lasting damage to soil and ecosystems on land.
When I make a purchase, i'm voting for the kind of world I want--that's how I think of spending, anyway. I don't want an unrecognizable world with an unstable environment, an unpredictable food supply, and the political instability that accompanies that. To me, supporting sustainable farming practices when I make my food purchases is all part of that bigger picture.
I totally respect folks who make a different decision for their families and put budgets first, but just wanted to point out that for some of us who do choose to cough up more at the register this has nothing to do with perceptions of nutrition.
-
Thanks for the responses so far. The reason for the worry now is that my baby is starting to eat adult food and I'm worried I might not be giving her the best if I don't give her organic. While rationally I know there might not be much difference, it's the unknown that is making me choose organic food for her :( have you faced this?
-
Don't let fear make decisions for you. There... solved. :)
-
Thanks for the responses so far. The reason for the worry now is that my baby is starting to eat adult food and I'm worried I might not be giving her the best if I don't give her organic. While rationally I know there might not be much difference, it's the unknown that is making me choose organic food for her :( have you faced this?
Having a kid means dealing with an onslaught of guilt shit that marketers push at you. Remember that there's very little difference between organic food and regular food as far as nutrition goes. Also, remember that just getting the damned kid to eat anything after 18 months is going to be a knock down drag out battle. It doesn't matter if it's organic or not when 90% of the food is hitting the floor and heading straight into the trash bin? :P
-
Not really.
Also trying to frame your buying patterns off of a cutsy internet list is a little silly. Here is some information on the dirty dozen - http://vitals.lifehacker.com/why-you-shouldnt-buy-organic-based-on-the-dirty-dozen-1689190822
Thanks! I hadn't read that article; it's very enlightening.
-
For those of you who buy organic because of health reasons or a supposed milder impact on the environment, keep the following in mind. Organic DOES NOT MEAN pesticide free. Many "natural" pesticides can be used (and are heavily used) in organic farming, even though these "natural" pesticides can be more toxic (including to the environment) and may need to be used in much greater amounts than synthetic alternatives. On top of that, because organic growers are restricted in which pesticides they can use, they may end up applying pesticides much more often than if they had access to a modern, fit-for-purpose synthetic pesticide.
Also keep in mind that at least in the United States, the National Organic Program is a marketing program, run by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. It is not a program that purports to certify "healthier" or "more environmentally friendly" food. It exists solely because consumers demand it and because sellers can demand a premium for produce that has been certified.
And finally, remember that pesticides are thoroughly studied and heavily regulated. That does not mean that we should blindly trust chemical companies or the government, just that we know a lot more about pesticides than about many other chemicals. And the levels of pesticide residues that are found on produce (both organic and non-organic) are routinely far below any levels of concern.
-
For those of you who buy organic because of health reasons or a supposed milder impact on the environment, keep the following in mind. Organic DOES NOT MEAN pesticide free. Many "natural" pesticides can be used (and are heavily used) in organic farming, even though these "natural" pesticides can be more toxic (including to the environment) and may need to be used in much greater amounts than synthetic alternatives. On top of that, because organic growers are restricted in which pesticides they can use, they may end up applying pesticides much more often than if they had access to a modern, fit-for-purpose synthetic pesticide.
.
Looks like Web MD says that organic, on average, contains 1/3 the pesticide residue of conventional. Add that to the studies I've seen of pesticides on autism and cancer and I think that organic is worth the price.
Here is the quote from Webmd
"If you're talking about pesticides, the evidence is pretty conclusive. Your chances of getting pesticide residues are much less with organic food," says John Reganold, professor of soil science at Washington State University in Pullman, Wash.
Reganold points to a large-scale study done by the Consumers Union. Researchers looked at data from more than 94,000 food samples and 20 different crops. They found that organically grown crops consistently had about one-third as many pesticide residues as the conventionally grown versions. Organic foods also were far less likely to contain residues of more than one pesticide."
-
If you're eating mostly fruits and vegetables, then your body will be pretty happy regardless of whether they had natural or synthetic pesticides sprayed on them. Freshness and taste is the main driver for me. I pay extra from the farmers market for tomatoes, cherries, figs, kale, and asparagus. I couldn't even tell you if they're organic or not, only that they taste better than the alternative. Everything else I buy the cheapest I can find at the grocery/produce store.
-
For those of you who buy organic because of health reasons or a supposed milder impact on the environment, keep the following in mind. Organic DOES NOT MEAN pesticide free. Many "natural" pesticides can be used (and are heavily used) in organic farming, even though these "natural" pesticides can be more toxic (including to the environment) and may need to be used in much greater amounts than synthetic alternatives. On top of that, because organic growers are restricted in which pesticides they can use, they may end up applying pesticides much more often than if they had access to a modern, fit-for-purpose synthetic pesticide.
.
Looks like Web MD says that organic, on average, contains 1/3 the pesticide residue of conventional. Add that to the studies I've seen of pesticides on autism and cancer and I think that organic is worth the price.
Here is the quote from Webmd
"If you're talking about pesticides, the evidence is pretty conclusive. Your chances of getting pesticide residues are much less with organic food," says John Reganold, professor of soil science at Washington State University in Pullman, Wash.
Reganold points to a large-scale study done by the Consumers Union. Researchers looked at data from more than 94,000 food samples and 20 different crops. They found that organically grown crops consistently had about one-third as many pesticide residues as the conventionally grown versions. Organic foods also were far less likely to contain residues of more than one pesticide."
what studies? haha
http://io9.com/on-correlation-causation-and-the-real-cause-of-auti-1494972271
-
What is worse, autism or cancer from pesticides?? That is like when you are voting and you have to chose a candidate who is the least likely corrupted.
-
For those of you who buy organic because of health reasons or a supposed milder impact on the environment, keep the following in mind. Organic DOES NOT MEAN pesticide free. Many "natural" pesticides can be used (and are heavily used) in organic farming, even though these "natural" pesticides can be more toxic (including to the environment) and may need to be used in much greater amounts than synthetic alternatives. On top of that, because organic growers are restricted in which pesticides they can use, they may end up applying pesticides much more often than if they had access to a modern, fit-for-purpose synthetic pesticide.
.
Looks like Web MD says that organic, on average, contains 1/3 the pesticide residue of conventional. Add that to the studies I've seen of pesticides on autism and cancer and I think that organic is worth the price.
Here is the quote from Webmd
"If you're talking about pesticides, the evidence is pretty conclusive. Your chances of getting pesticide residues are much less with organic food," says John Reganold, professor of soil science at Washington State University in Pullman, Wash.
Reganold points to a large-scale study done by the Consumers Union. Researchers looked at data from more than 94,000 food samples and 20 different crops. They found that organically grown crops consistently had about one-third as many pesticide residues as the conventionally grown versions. Organic foods also were far less likely to contain residues of more than one pesticide."
what studies? haha
http://io9.com/on-correlation-causation-and-the-real-cause-of-auti-1494972271
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2014/jun/autism-and-pesticides
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20140623/study-links-pesticide-exposure-during-pregnancy-to-autism-risk-in-kids
Others available with quick google search.
-
Not when the same product is many multiples of the price.
A while ago I was at the fresh food market. The regular green capsicums were about $2 a kilo (and about $6 at the nearby Woolies). At the organic stand at the market? $8.99 a kilo. The organic red capsicums were something crazy like $18.99 a kilo.
Most organic stuff seems to be at least twice the price. For that I'd rather buy the nornal fruit and vegies, although maybe the standards are higher here than in the States.
-
For those of you who buy organic because of health reasons or a supposed milder impact on the environment, keep the following in mind. Organic DOES NOT MEAN pesticide free. Many "natural" pesticides can be used (and are heavily used) in organic farming, even though these "natural" pesticides can be more toxic (including to the environment) and may need to be used in much greater amounts than synthetic alternatives. On top of that, because organic growers are restricted in which pesticides they can use, they may end up applying pesticides much more often than if they had access to a modern, fit-for-purpose synthetic pesticide.
.
Looks like Web MD says that organic, on average, contains 1/3 the pesticide residue of conventional. Add that to the studies I've seen of pesticides on autism and cancer and I think that organic is worth the price.
Here is the quote from Webmd
"If you're talking about pesticides, the evidence is pretty conclusive. Your chances of getting pesticide residues are much less with organic food," says John Reganold, professor of soil science at Washington State University in Pullman, Wash.
Reganold points to a large-scale study done by the Consumers Union. Researchers looked at data from more than 94,000 food samples and 20 different crops. They found that organically grown crops consistently had about one-third as many pesticide residues as the conventionally grown versions. Organic foods also were far less likely to contain residues of more than one pesticide."
what studies? haha
http://io9.com/on-correlation-causation-and-the-real-cause-of-auti-1494972271
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2014/jun/autism-and-pesticides
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20140623/study-links-pesticide-exposure-during-pregnancy-to-autism-risk-in-kids
Others available with quick google search.
PROTIP: If you're going to link to articles to make a point, at least read them to make sure they agree with you.
Neither article even contains the word "organic". Sweet "quick google search" though.
-
Not when the same product is many multiples of the price.
A while ago I was at the fresh food market. The regular green capsicums were about $2 a kilo (and about $6 at the nearby Woolies). At the organic stand at the market? $8.99 a kilo. The organic red capsicums were something crazy like $18.99 a kilo.
Most organic stuff seems to be at least twice the price. For that I'd rather buy the nornal fruit and vegies, although maybe the standards are higher here than in the States.
Organic is more expensive. Only way to keep the price reasonably close is buying different items at different stores. Costco has great deals on organic meats (ground beef in particular) and organic frozen fruit. Kroger has good sales/coupons on organic produce but is much more expensive on organic meat. Walmart's Wild Oats brand prices on organic canned goods are great. You just have to know where to look. Whole Paycheck is just too expensive all around.
-
For those of you who buy organic because of health reasons or a supposed milder impact on the environment, keep the following in mind. Organic DOES NOT MEAN pesticide free. Many "natural" pesticides can be used (and are heavily used) in organic farming, even though these "natural" pesticides can be more toxic (including to the environment) and may need to be used in much greater amounts than synthetic alternatives. On top of that, because organic growers are restricted in which pesticides they can use, they may end up applying pesticides much more often than if they had access to a modern, fit-for-purpose synthetic pesticide.
.
Looks like Web MD says that organic, on average, contains 1/3 the pesticide residue of conventional. Add that to the studies I've seen of pesticides on autism and cancer and I think that organic is worth the price.
Here is the quote from Webmd
"If you're talking about pesticides, the evidence is pretty conclusive. Your chances of getting pesticide residues are much less with organic food," says John Reganold, professor of soil science at Washington State University in Pullman, Wash.
Reganold points to a large-scale study done by the Consumers Union. Researchers looked at data from more than 94,000 food samples and 20 different crops. They found that organically grown crops consistently had about one-third as many pesticide residues as the conventionally grown versions. Organic foods also were far less likely to contain residues of more than one pesticide."
what studies? haha
http://io9.com/on-correlation-causation-and-the-real-cause-of-auti-1494972271
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2014/jun/autism-and-pesticides
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20140623/study-links-pesticide-exposure-during-pregnancy-to-autism-risk-in-kids
Others available with quick google search.
PROTIP: If you're going to link to articles to make a point, at least read them to make sure they agree with you.
Neither article even contains the word "organic". Sweet "quick google search" though.
PROTIP: Read the whole quoted post to make sure that your punk response makes sense before acting like a jack***. The whole point is that organic has 1/3 the pesticides as conventional, on average, and pesticide exposure is associated with autism. I bet you don't run your mouth like that in person, do you?
-
I don't pay attention to organic. What I do pay attention to is the conditions under which my meat was raised.
Poultry, in particular, is often raised in absolutely sickening, should-be-criminal conditions in corporate farms. I don't want to contribute to that. So, I try to eat humanely grown, free range animals.
-
Tbh it's debatable. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is lying.
-
For those of you who buy organic because of health reasons or a supposed milder impact on the environment, keep the following in mind. Organic DOES NOT MEAN pesticide free. Many "natural" pesticides can be used (and are heavily used) in organic farming, even though these "natural" pesticides can be more toxic (including to the environment) and may need to be used in much greater amounts than synthetic alternatives. On top of that, because organic growers are restricted in which pesticides they can use, they may end up applying pesticides much more often than if they had access to a modern, fit-for-purpose synthetic pesticide.
.
Looks like Web MD says that organic, on average, contains 1/3 the pesticide residue of conventional. Add that to the studies I've seen of pesticides on autism and cancer and I think that organic is worth the price.
Here is the quote from Webmd
"If you're talking about pesticides, the evidence is pretty conclusive. Your chances of getting pesticide residues are much less with organic food," says John Reganold, professor of soil science at Washington State University in Pullman, Wash.
Reganold points to a large-scale study done by the Consumers Union. Researchers looked at data from more than 94,000 food samples and 20 different crops. They found that organically grown crops consistently had about one-third as many pesticide residues as the conventionally grown versions. Organic foods also were far less likely to contain residues of more than one pesticide."
what studies? haha
http://io9.com/on-correlation-causation-and-the-real-cause-of-auti-1494972271
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2014/jun/autism-and-pesticides
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20140623/study-links-pesticide-exposure-during-pregnancy-to-autism-risk-in-kids
Others available with quick google search.
PROTIP: If you're going to link to articles to make a point, at least read them to make sure they agree with you.
Neither article even contains the word "organic". Sweet "quick google search" though.
PROTIP: Read the whole quoted post to make sure that your punk response makes sense before acting like a jack***. The whole point is that organic has 1/3 the pesticides as conventional, on average, and pesticide exposure is associated with autism. I bet you don't run your mouth like that in person, do you?
Again, it's too bad you didn't read the articles that you posted. They have nothing to do with EATING pesticides.
You've twice now stated that "organic has 1/3 the pesticides" without a reference. Please cite your source. (and maybe read it first, just for fun)
-
And how silly of me to think that articles posted in a thread about buying organic vs conventional produce would actually contain info about eating organic produce. I'm certainly embarrassed.
-
For those of you who buy organic because of health reasons or a supposed milder impact on the environment, keep the following in mind. Organic DOES NOT MEAN pesticide free. Many "natural" pesticides can be used (and are heavily used) in organic farming, even though these "natural" pesticides can be more toxic (including to the environment) and may need to be used in much greater amounts than synthetic alternatives. On top of that, because organic growers are restricted in which pesticides they can use, they may end up applying pesticides much more often than if they had access to a modern, fit-for-purpose synthetic pesticide.
.
Looks like Web MD says that organic, on average, contains 1/3 the pesticide residue of conventional. Add that to the studies I've seen of pesticides on autism and cancer and I think that organic is worth the price.
Here is the quote from Webmd
"If you're talking about pesticides, the evidence is pretty conclusive. Your chances of getting pesticide residues are much less with organic food," says John Reganold, professor of soil science at Washington State University in Pullman, Wash.
Reganold points to a large-scale study done by the Consumers Union. Researchers looked at data from more than 94,000 food samples and 20 different crops. They found that organically grown crops consistently had about one-third as many pesticide residues as the conventionally grown versions. Organic foods also were far less likely to contain residues of more than one pesticide."
what studies? haha
http://io9.com/on-correlation-causation-and-the-real-cause-of-auti-1494972271
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2014/jun/autism-and-pesticides
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20140623/study-links-pesticide-exposure-during-pregnancy-to-autism-risk-in-kids
Others available with quick google search.
PROTIP: If you're going to link to articles to make a point, at least read them to make sure they agree with you.
Neither article even contains the word "organic". Sweet "quick google search" though.
PROTIP: Read the whole quoted post to make sure that your punk response makes sense before acting like a jack***. The whole point is that organic has 1/3 the pesticides as conventional, on average, and pesticide exposure is associated with autism. I bet you don't run your mouth like that in person, do you?
Again, it's too bad you didn't read the articles that you posted. They have nothing to do with EATING pesticides.
You've twice now stated that "organic has 1/3 the pesticides" without a reference. Please cite your source. (and maybe read it first, just for fun)
The quotation is at the top of this post that both of us keep quoting. Here is the link so that you can 'verify' the quotation. And I know these articles as my best friend's nephew has autism and he is friends with my son and it has been discussed ad nauseous in my house. Just because you don't agree with my take doesn't make me wrong and you right. If living by pesticide fields is linked to autism and organic food has 2/3 less pesticides isn't it reasonable to think that there could be a link between eating pesticides and autism? It's always the real life punks with the big mouths online. I can picture you as I'm typing this.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/organic-food-better
-
Like Kris, I try to only eat humanely raised meats and eggs. Luckily, my local chain grocery store has a specific product line that fits those ethics. I also do my own research on the farms in question. Most are local. I also have several autoimmune conditions that are controlled mostly with diet. Eating hormone and antibiotic free meat is part of that. Also, the organic/free range/humanely treated/grass fed meats taste so much better. I couldn't go back. Our food budget is pretty high but I save so much on medicine and surgery this way that it's worth it for me. (I'm also gluten free and dairy free too for medical reasons.)
I don't bother w/ organic fruits and veggies.
-
There are so many chemicals in our environment, and we have such little understanding of what they do to humans. Pesticides is just one example of chemicals that we know are toxic to humans, but are present at lower levels in our foods, so we assume they are OK. Who knows what happens when we eat them for a long time. And who knows what happens when those chemicals interact with all the other chemicals in our bodies (everything from flame retardants to plasticizers to phthalates to etc). I think the good kind of organic is better for us and better for the environment. But the rules for organic labeling are suboptimal, so you aren't sure exactly what you are getting. But the same is true when you buy fish or vitamins--often what's on the label isn't what's actually in the package.
-
The quotation is at the top of this post that both of us keep quoting. Here is the link so that you can 'verify' the quotation.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/organic-food-better
Considering your current track record of posting links in this thread, yes, I think pretty much all of us would like to verify.
Somewhat surprisingly, that article does state the result of one study (without linking to it) that organic produce has 1/3 the pesticide. However, it is specifically at odds with the article (http://vitals.lifehacker.com/why-you-shouldnt-buy-organic-based-on-the-dirty-dozen-1689190822) matchwed posted earlier.
The problem is that the EWG's solution—buy organic if you are concerned about pesticides—won't necessarily reduce your pesticide intake.
Organic farming uses pesticides too. In fact, here is the National List of pesticides approved for organic certified farms. It includes some fairly toxic substances, like copper sulfate, and many are not restricted in terms of how much a farmer can use. Just because "synthetic" pesticides are more strictly regulated doesn't mean the natural ones are healthier: Back before rotenone was banned, it was allowed on conventional and organic crops alike, since it comes from a plant rather than a synthetic source. Organic pesticides aren't necessarily better for the environment either.
This would be a moot point if we could compare the pesticides found on organic and conventional produce. You'll notice that the EWG only mentions the pesticides found on conventional produce: that's because the USDA doesn't test for organic pesticides.
They use a high-speed method that lets them test for hundreds of pesticides at a time, but the test can't detect many organic pesticides including copper sulfate and Bt toxin (famous for its role in GMO corn and soy, but it's also perfectly legal in organic farming).
We know that organic produce has less of the synthetic pesticides than conventional produce does (not zero, but less). But we don't have complete information on the total pesticide load, synthetic and organic, so it would be wrong to claim that organic produce has less. We just can't say.
So how do we know which one is correct? I'm guessing we don't. But I certainly wouldn't just state as a cold hard fact that organic definitely contains less pesticides. It's not really clear. Maybe the un-cited study from WebMD didn't account for the fact that many organic pesticides aren't even tested for. An article like this (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/) from Scientific American pretty much states the same thing as the Lifehacker article. That it's not really measured, or not measured properly. But all three articles agree that that no matter the conclusion, pesticides are not inherently bad at low levels and that organic pesticides are not better than synthetic. So at least that much is clear. If you're going to ingest trace amounts of pesticides, the source hardly matters.
If living by pesticide fields is linked to autism and organic food has 2/3 less pesticides isn't it reasonable to think that there could be a link between eating pesticides and autism?
Your reasoning isn't all that solid. It's the equivalent of high doses of radiation causes cancer, therefore having an x-ray 1/year at the dentist also causes cancer. If you go to the dentist, you'll get cancer.
I can picture you as I'm typing this.
I should hope so. My picture is just to the left.
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
It's a benefit if you don't understand science.
Yeah like science has never been wrong. Not too long ago many scientist thought that leaded gas was safe for humans.
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
It's a benefit if you don't understand science.
Yeah like science has never been wrong. Not too long ago many scientist thought that leaded gas was safe for humans.
Not if you drink it...
-
I get that organic might taste better or be better for you etc, but honestly I'm not going to pay triple the price for something with organic on it. I'd pay a small amount extra, maybe 20-50%, but not triple the price.
Kinda reminds me of the paleo muesli that I saw for sale for $20 in a small supermarket a couple of months ago. That's an awful lot of money for a fad diet. Someone's making a fortune. Meanwhile I'll happily buy the regular muesli for $4.
The other thing is, I live in an urban area, and cycle to work. I'm sure I'm exposed to more chemicals on my half hour ride to work (petrol/diesel fumes, etc) than would be present in any non-organic food I eat.
As far as animal welfare goes, I'll happily buy the free range meat for a bit more (and outright refuse to buy cage eggs).
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
Geez, folks. It's a benefit if you care about GMOs. Not everyone does. Not trying to make a political statement; it's just a reason why some people choose organic. Note that my list of benefits is *intended* to be questionable; the whole point of my post is that these are personal decisions that have research on either side and the territory is murky. Some people put GMOs into that category. YMMV.
I care about GMOs. I care that there's technology in its early stages that could be being used to reduce malnutrition and make the world a better place, but its use is stunted because of smug, ignorant, paranoid pseudo-hippies who fool the vaguely interested.
As for fertilizer pollution - Organic also uses fertilizer, it's just more likely to be manure rather than fertilizer produced in a factory. Both contribute substantially to the nitrogen and phosphorus in surface waters which lead to dead zones. (You can find streams foamy from nitrogen pollution downstream of dairy farms where nobody's been injecting ammonium nitrate into the ground.) Honestly the best way to reduce nitrogen pollution is to eat less protein. Most of that nitrogen leaves you, too, and contributes to pollution starting at the effluent pipe from your local sewage treatment plant. And the animals you're eating defecated and urinated their whole lives, too.
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
It's a benefit if you don't understand science.
Yeah like science has never been wrong. Not too long ago many scientist thought that leaded gas was safe for humans.
The reason science works is that it uses the best known evidence at the time to draw conclusions. If new evidence is brought forward, the conclusion is revised.
Could science be wrong about GMOs? Sure, there's an outside possibility of anything. To date there exists no evidence that genetically modified food is more dangerous that regular food though (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601831-little-state-could-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601831-little-state-could-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977/safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods-approaches-to-assessing-unintended-health#toc (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977/safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods-approaches-to-assessing-unintended-health#toc), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/), http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf), http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long (http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long)). Believing otherwise is a leap of faith based on opinion, not valid data.
Trying to use the fact that science corrects its mistakes as an indicator that we should ignore the best scientific information is a facile argument.
-
I still eat GMO's but I have one concern I haven't seen addressed here.
I don't think anyone can deny proliferation of true food allergies. I don't just mean fad diets but people going into anaphalaxis. Celiac is on the rise. My body cannot process gluten or dairy. My immune system goes nuts. This isn't "hippy medicine" but a board certified specialist at one of the countries most renowned teaching hospitals diagnosing me and prohibiting me from eating it.
One of my nagging questions is why are autoimmune diseases and allergies (also autoimmune) on the rise. One speculative answer I have heard is that, using wheat as one example, the wheat we eat today is not the wheat our ancestors ate. Something is different about it and not everyone's body can handle it. When I look for what is different, one thing I see is GMOs. Maybe for some reason my body sees certain modified foods as not food and treats it as an invader. I don't know. Like I said, I still eat GMO just not wheat and dairy. For those interested in the topic, I am also allergic to Red Dye 40, strawberries, avocados (tears shed for that one) and possibly now mangoes.
I asked my doctor if people just didn't report these allergies years ago. She doubts it, especially since the symptoms for many are so severe. Hives, trouble breathing, etc. When I was in school, one kid had an epipen for bees. I didn't know any others. Today, my mom (a teacher) carries 7 epipens for one class. That means a third of her students have life threatening allergies. That doesn't count the others with non-life threatening allergies. More than half her class has some food restriction. Since they are toddlers, it is on her to monitor it.
-
Epigenetics and exposure are two factors which I would look towards more so than GMO's in the rise of allergies.
Wheat has been genetically modified by humans for tens of thousands of years. Why are the last few decades so scary? Because it's faster? Because the transparency isn't there unless you read a huge amount of studies and science?
Kiwis were introduced to European and American markets in the 60's, not GMO, ever, now there are people who are allergic (source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Allergenicity). Could the rise of allergic people to kiwis be related at all to GMO? No. So there is some other mechanism which is not yet known.
All GMO's are tested for allergens in people. This is part of the process of development of GMO products. It's great that people are asking questions, questions are fine, but ignoring the answers or just seeking answers that suit their opinions is not.
-
Also no approved GMO peanuts, yet peanut allergies are also on the rise.
-
Also no approved GMO peanuts, yet peanut allergies are also on the rise.
There's some evidence to suggest that peanut consumption of the mother while pregnant correlates to reduced chance of allergic reaction to them in offspring. http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1793699 (http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1793699)
-
Also no approved GMO peanuts, yet peanut allergies are also on the rise.
There's some evidence to suggest that peanut consumption of the mother while pregnant correlates to reduced chance of allergic reaction to them in offspring. http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1793699 (http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1793699)
Epigenetics and exposure? Shock! Gasp!
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
It's a benefit if you don't understand science.
Incorrect, my friend, those of us who don't fear normal produce DO understand science. And to answer the OP, no, it is not worth the money.
-
Also no approved GMO peanuts, yet peanut allergies are also on the rise.
I was thinking that are immune systems *could* be triggered by GMOs and by having a heightened immune reaction we are more likely to be allergic other non GMO substances. Again, personal, non-scientific theory and always open to dispelling it with research and discussion.
-
Also no approved GMO peanuts, yet peanut allergies are also on the rise.
I was thinking that are immune systems *could* be triggered by GMOs and by having a heightened immune reaction we are more likely to be allergic other non GMO substances. Again, personal, non-scientific theory and always open to dispelling it with research and discussion.
Alright, I'll explain, as a chemist I tend to research the scientific papers published on these topics, which are not easy to find on google type search engines. Are you familiar with a disease killing off the majority of a crop, we've all heard of this, right? Ok, the remaining plants in the crop that weren't killed are resistant to that particular disease.... this is a natural process untouched by man. Now, understand that agricultural scientists have subjected plants to as many diseases as they could, finding only the plants who were resistant to those diseases (and pests) so pesticides and other chemicals would not be needed in growing our food. THAT is Genetically Modified food. Unfortunately, the misunderstanding of how that simple process works has caused a scare among uninformed consumers, and like many other unecessary scares, have led people to thinking they have to buy expensive versions of things.
I personally don't want mass produced organic vegetables because so many of those farmers have to charge extra due to all the chemicals they have to use in farming, and I like less chemicals, not more chemicals. GMO vs organic has nothing to do with allergens... unless you're like some people who have allergies to the chemicals some organic farmers use.
-
Also no approved GMO peanuts, yet peanut allergies are also on the rise.
I was thinking that are immune systems *could* be triggered by GMOs and by having a heightened immune reaction we are more likely to be allergic other non GMO substances. Again, personal, non-scientific theory and always open to dispelling it with research and discussion.
Alright, I'll explain, as a chemist I tend to research the scientific papers published on these topics, which are not easy to find on google type search engines. Are you familiar with a disease killing off the majority of a crop, we've all heard of this, right? Ok, the remaining plants in the crop that weren't killed are resistant to that particular disease.... this is a natural process untouched by man. Now, understand that agricultural scientists have subjected plants to as many diseases as they could, finding only the plants who were resistant to those diseases (and pests) so pesticides and other chemicals would not be needed in growing our food. THAT is Genetically Modified food. Unfortunately, the misunderstanding of how that simple process works has caused a scare among uninformed consumers, and like many other unecessary scares, have led people to thinking they have to buy expensive versions of things.
I personally don't want mass produced organic vegetables because so many of those farmers have to charge extra due to all the chemicals they have to use in farming, and I like less chemicals, not more chemicals. GMO vs organic has nothing to do with allergens... unless you're like some people who have allergies to the chemicals some organic farmers use.
Actually, that's not what GMO means in common usage. Typically a GMO crop is a scientifically engineered genetic mutation that is frequently introduced by lacing special virus with a particular strain of genetic material (coding for a particular protein), and then essentially infecting the target plant with that virus. The virus then edits the plant's DNA, causing it to produce the desired protein. The desired protein is generally selected from some other organism that scientists found to have desired characteristics. But this is only because we don't really know how to create proteins that have desired characteristics de novo. Eventually the field will move into creating proteins that are new to the Earth and will insert them into plants too.
I think GMOs are a dual edged sword. They have the potential to make food more nutritious, grow with fewer chemicals and fertilizers, be more disease resistant, etc. But they make potentially our entire food system vulnerable. This is literally an existential threat in some circumstances. In Ireland there was massive population decline due to the blight that caused the potato famine. When you have one crop that is vulnerable to the same disease, it can wipe out all production of that food. So if we start putting the same proteins in all our food crops (which we are already doing--once you find one thing that works, people want to put it in everything), and it turns out that protein causes the plant to become vulnerable to a disease we are currently unaware of, then suddenly our food production could get nearly wiped out. And this isn't just speculation. I believe that pretty much all field corn (field corn is fed to animals, processed into HFCS, ethanol, and other products, and is not the corn on the cob you eat--although the GMO share of that is increasing as well) grown in the US is GMO corn. Industries move quickly to adopt monocultures. This is just one of the many risks of GMOs. Certainly some people could be more allergic to them. And there are other risks. It is unclear to me whether
-
I'd also like to throw in anti-bacterial soap/cleaners and hand sanitizer. I forbid it in my house. Nothing like making a super sterile environment for kids so they're hyper sensitive to everything. You bet your butt my kid's going to eat that waffle he dropped on the floor. Build that immunity, little buddy... Then, go outside and play.
More on point with the original thread, I refuse to pay more for the organic label. The only thing me buying organic does is cost me more $. My favorite anecdote on the logic of those buying organic is about someone who is at Starbucks and their kid wants a snack, they're not sure if the bananas they have there are organic or not, so they buy their kid the Organic Annie's fruit snacks instead... You know, just to be safe. I wish I could believe this doesn't actually happen.
-
For those of you who buy organic because of health reasons or a supposed milder impact on the environment, keep the following in mind. Organic DOES NOT MEAN pesticide free. Many "natural" pesticides can be used (and are heavily used) in organic farming, even though these "natural" pesticides can be more toxic (including to the environment) and may need to be used in much greater amounts than synthetic alternatives. On top of that, because organic growers are restricted in which pesticides they can use, they may end up applying pesticides much more often than if they had access to a modern, fit-for-purpose synthetic pesticide.
Also keep in mind that at least in the United States, the National Organic Program is a marketing program, run by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. It is not a program that purports to certify "healthier" or "more environmentally friendly" food. It exists solely because consumers demand it and because sellers can demand a premium for produce that has been certified.
And finally, remember that pesticides are thoroughly studied and heavily regulated. That does not mean that we should blindly trust chemical companies or the government, just that we know a lot more about pesticides than about many other chemicals. And the levels of pesticide residues that are found on produce (both organic and non-organic) are routinely far below any levels of concern.
Well that is interesting --- When I think organic I'm thinking primarily about meat. I knew the "organic" label was a scam but didn't realize it was USDA. That pretty much voids any relevance to the label.
I think that ideally I would purchase locally from known farmer. All the cides in veggies is a concern though. Probably impossible to get around pesticides in veggies. I can only grow them for a few months a year.
Consider this though ---- Food/food additives are the number one environmental input that we receive. (some may argue air or light). Food effects gene expression, health profiles, emotions, brain development, behavior, educational aptitude, life span, height and weight, etc..
So it is very much something worth considering. There are 10s of thousands of opinions by experts regarding good diets. It would behoove one to jump into that rabbit hole and dig to the bottom.
-
I'm just going to point out that the percentage of people who support mandatory labeling of GMO foods is the same as the percentage of people who support mandatory labeling of foods containing DNA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/17/over-80-percent-of-americans-support-mandatory-labels-on-foods-containing-dna/
I think that's the best example of ignorance on the subject that I've seen.
-
Food contains DNA now? Between this and all the dihydrogen monoxide in water I don't know what to do . . .
-
Food contains DNA now? Between this and all the dihydrogen monoxide in water I don't know what to do . . .
I prefer to call it by it's scarier name, hydroxy acid. Or is is acid hydroxide? It's an acid and a base!
-
I used to get a weekly delivery of organic local produce more out of laziness than anything else (they delivered it into my kitchen), and I found it to be much more flavorful and higher quality than the other stuff. I don't do that anymore due to not wanting to spend crazy amounts with little benefit.
I drink organic soy milk because that brand is the one my Costco carries and it's an excellent price. I also buy organic lemons if I'm going to be using the rind for baking lemon scones. Otherwise mo organic here. I do intend to eventually try to grow a lot of my own food, and I wouldn't use any sort of pesticides on that, so I guess it would be organic.
As a teenager I worked on a smaller organic vegetable farm and it was very apparent that the whole thing was way more environmentally friendly than the alternative, though I imagine it would vary farm by farm based on the philosophy of the farmers.
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
It's a benefit if you don't understand science.
Yeah like science has never been wrong. Not too long ago many scientist thought that leaded gas was safe for humans.
The reason science works is that it uses the best known evidence at the time to draw conclusions. If new evidence is brought forward, the conclusion is revised.
Could science be wrong about GMOs? Sure, there's an outside possibility of anything. To date there exists no evidence that genetically modified food is more dangerous that regular food though (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601831-little-state-could-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601831-little-state-could-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977/safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods-approaches-to-assessing-unintended-health#toc (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977/safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods-approaches-to-assessing-unintended-health#toc), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/), http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf), http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long (http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long)). Believing otherwise is a leap of faith based on opinion, not valid data.
Trying to use the fact that science corrects its mistakes as an indicator that we should ignore the best scientific information is a facile argument.
Skepticism in science is healthy and leads to progress. I also think that lay people can be skeptical of current science even if we can't ourselves test our hypotheses. That should not be exclusive to scientist.
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
It's a benefit if you don't understand science.
Yeah like science has never been wrong. Not too long ago many scientist thought that leaded gas was safe for humans.
The reason science works is that it uses the best known evidence at the time to draw conclusions. If new evidence is brought forward, the conclusion is revised.
Could science be wrong about GMOs? Sure, there's an outside possibility of anything. To date there exists no evidence that genetically modified food is more dangerous that regular food though (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601831-little-state-could-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601831-little-state-could-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977/safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods-approaches-to-assessing-unintended-health#toc (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977/safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods-approaches-to-assessing-unintended-health#toc), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/), http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf), http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long (http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long)). Believing otherwise is a leap of faith based on opinion, not valid data.
Trying to use the fact that science corrects its mistakes as an indicator that we should ignore the best scientific information is a facile argument.
Skepticism in science is healthy and leads to progress. I also think that lay people can be skeptical of current science even if we can't ourselves test our hypotheses. That should not be exclusive to scientist.
Absolutely. Skepticism leads to questions, then you need to look at the data to find answers to your questions. Just being skeptical without legitimately looking into an issue leads to very bad decisions though. A lot of foolishness (anti-vaccine hysteria, climate change denial, and homeopathy, etc.) is directly linked to skepticism without research.
-
If there is one thing I learned from this thread, then it would be, that without a clearly defined context, it makes little sense to discuss this at all.
What can be labelled "organic" and which regulations that follow with such labels sounds vastly different from the US or Canada to Denmark. I think it might be difficult to discuss this even in a European perspective, as there are different, country-specific labelling schemes and regulations just within the EU.
Still my personal reason for (often) buying organic is often linked to animal-welfare when we're talking about animal products like meats/eggs/dairy. Vegetables I am a little less likely to buy organic, but even then there are many factors besides it being organic or not - like where and under which regulations it is produced and the price of course. I try to buy local products more often than organic as well, if possible.
-
Food contains DNA now? Between this and all the dihydrogen monoxide in water I don't know what to do . . .
I prefer to call it by it's scarier name, hydroxy acid. Or is is acid hydroxide? It's an acid and a base!
You guys joke, but dihydrogen monoxide is a serious issue. California is having a serious problem with it and it's going to cost billions to deal with. It's a leading cause of asphyxia, corrosion, and can cause severe burns. It causes billions of dollars in property damage every year.
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
It's a benefit if you don't understand science.
Yeah like science has never been wrong. Not too long ago many scientist thought that leaded gas was safe for humans.
The reason science works is that it uses the best known evidence at the time to draw conclusions. If new evidence is brought forward, the conclusion is revised.
Could science be wrong about GMOs? Sure, there's an outside possibility of anything. To date there exists no evidence that genetically modified food is more dangerous that regular food though (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601831-little-state-could-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601831-little-state-could-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977/safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods-approaches-to-assessing-unintended-health#toc (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977/safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods-approaches-to-assessing-unintended-health#toc), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/), http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf), http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long (http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long)). Believing otherwise is a leap of faith based on opinion, not valid data.
Trying to use the fact that science corrects its mistakes as an indicator that we should ignore the best scientific information is a facile argument.
Skepticism in science is healthy and leads to progress. I also think that lay people can be skeptical of current science even if we can't ourselves test our hypotheses. That should not be exclusive to scientist.
Absolutely. Skepticism leads to questions, then you need to look at the data to find answers to your questions. Just being skeptical without legitimately looking into an issue leads to very bad decisions though. A lot of foolishness (anti-vaccine hysteria, climate change denial, and homeopathy, etc.) is directly linked to skepticism without research.
You know, I'm not so sure. On what grounds or using what methods are the lay people supposed to do research that challenges scientific results? Lay people can certainly check that claims are supported by properly cited sources, and that sources actually say what they are claimed to say. But how does a lay person evaluate a scientific study? For that matter, most of them don't (and can't) understand what constitutes a proper or reliable citation. For the most part, it's better for lay people to trust the scientific community to do this stuff, just like they trust certified utility workers to fix downed electric lines and board-certified surgeons to perform operations. The scientific community does its own internal fact checking, and that is going to have to be enough. Climate change denial, autism and vaccines, anti-GMOs, diet weirdness and all the other silliness occurs precisely when regular people try and "fix" science with their "research".
Lay people who want to check what the best current scientific consensus is should go to the large scale organizations that represent the relevant scientific community.
-
I don't go out of my way to buy organic. Most of whatever I buy is incidental - Costco only had this item in organic or somehow, someway, it is cheaper to buy a particular kind of item organic, usually as a loss leader or in the clearance bin.
My only concern about GMOs is patent trolling. Otherwise, I don't care.
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
It's a benefit if you don't understand science.
Yeah like science has never been wrong. Not too long ago many scientist thought that leaded gas was safe for humans.
The reason science works is that it uses the best known evidence at the time to draw conclusions. If new evidence is brought forward, the conclusion is revised.
Could science be wrong about GMOs? Sure, there's an outside possibility of anything. To date there exists no evidence that genetically modified food is more dangerous that regular food though (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601831-little-state-could-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601831-little-state-could-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977/safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods-approaches-to-assessing-unintended-health#toc (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977/safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods-approaches-to-assessing-unintended-health#toc), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/), http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf), http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long (http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long)). Believing otherwise is a leap of faith based on opinion, not valid data.
Trying to use the fact that science corrects its mistakes as an indicator that we should ignore the best scientific information is a facile argument.
Skepticism in science is healthy and leads to progress. I also think that lay people can be skeptical of current science even if we can't ourselves test our hypotheses. That should not be exclusive to scientist.
Absolutely. Skepticism leads to questions, then you need to look at the data to find answers to your questions. Just being skeptical without legitimately looking into an issue leads to very bad decisions though. A lot of foolishness (anti-vaccine hysteria, climate change denial, and homeopathy, etc.) is directly linked to skepticism without research.
You know, I'm not so sure. On what grounds or using what methods are the lay people supposed to do research that challenges scientific results? Lay people can certainly check that claims are supported by properly cited sources, and that sources actually say what they are claimed to say. But how does a lay person evaluate a scientific study? For that matter, most of them don't (and can't) understand what constitutes a proper or reliable citation. For the most part, it's better for lay people to trust the scientific community to do this stuff, just like they trust certified utility workers to fix downed electric lines and board-certified surgeons to perform operations. The scientific community does its own internal fact checking, and that is going to have to be enough. Climate change denial, autism and vaccines, anti-GMOs, diet weirdness and all the other silliness occurs precisely when regular people try and "fix" science with their "research".
Lay people who want to check what the best current scientific consensus is should go to the large scale organizations that represent the relevant scientific community.
I don't advocate blindly accepting what an authority tells you as a general rule. If you choose to remain stupid about something though, that is probably your only valid recourse. The better solution lies in educating yourself to at least a moderate level of competence in the area that concerns you.
-
Is deferring to experts the same as accepting authority? What authority do research scientists really have anyway? I would view those as separate things.
-
When I make a purchase, i'm voting for the kind of world I want--that's how I think of spending, anyway. I don't want an unrecognizable world with an unstable environment, an unpredictable food supply, and the political instability that accompanies that. To me, supporting sustainable farming practices when I make my food purchases is all part of that bigger picture.
I think that this is my main motivation, too. If possible, I'll go for locally grown, fair trade, or other products that support social responsibility / sustainable practices. Not exactly Mustachian in some ways, but it aligns with my values. Of course, the methodology changes as I learn more, so I love to see threads like this.
On GMOs, I am more against corporate practices and how they affect small farmers. It is also hard to really know the long-term affects on both the environment and how our bodies will adapt to them.
Also, honey bees. Crop pollinators and producers of one of my favorite things. The population is declining, with pesticides as a likely culprit (along with weather and pests). I know organics can use some pesticides, but it sounds like they have less of an environmental impact.
Every bit helps?
-
My problem with this statement:
"Lay people who want to check what the best current scientific consensus is should go to the large scale organizations that represent the relevant scientific community"
is that the "large scale organizations" are often in the pocket or otherwise controlled by a lobby or special interest group trying to protect the product being researched. As an example, I wouldn't trust a study paid for by Monsanto. I also absolutely do not believe that government agencies have our best interests at heart. It is all political and what group donate to whose campaign.
I will read with interest all studies published by major universities and health care centers, however, as an example.
-
My problem with this statement:
I also absolutely do not believe that government agencies have our best interests at heart. It is all political and what group donate to whose campaign.
This assumes a level of political control that's frankly unbelievable. There's about 7,000 political appointees in the federal government, most of whom work in the White House. There's ~3,000 full-time political appointees outside the White House. This compares to about 4 million total federal employees (including all 3 branches of government plus the military). Most people who work in the government have no significant interaction with political appointees - and one of the strengths of our personnel system is that it's difficult to fire federal employees without cause.
How, exactly, do you think there's such widescale political pressure on government scientists?
-
(http://www.compoundchem.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/A-Rough-Guide-to-Spotting-Bad-Science-2015-724x1024.png)
-
Thanks for posting that, 4alpacas. As I was reading I was thinking of posting the same graphic.
There's a lot of bad science that has been distributed and believed! by intelligent people, who trust these 'studies'. There's an especially bad one from MIT that has really done a lot of damage.
I have made numerous GMO plants for my research, and in fact, my students this past semester made their own (it's EASY!) so they could understand the process. BOY were their misconceptions, even in my advanced science class.
Back to the original topic- I think I would rather put my money toward local than toward organic. Many local farmers (at least in our area) are basically organic, even if not certified organic. I don't care so much about the label and the certification. I do want to stay away from factory farmed animal products. That doesn't always cost more. My concerns are more related to carbon footprint (food miles and minimize red meat- which is really bad for the planet), environment (e.g. overuse of fertilizer, overfishing), and animal welfare (happy chickens), than health issues. Wash your vegetables carefully. Grow a garden and feed your baby what you want.
-
As a teenager I worked on a smaller organic vegetable farm and it was very apparent that the whole thing was way more environmentally friendly than the alternative, though I imagine it would vary farm by farm based on the philosophy of the farmers.
You witnessed something environmentally friendly, but what is the alternative you're referring to? Something you witnessed first hand?
-
As a teenager I worked on a smaller organic vegetable farm and it was very apparent that the whole thing was way more environmentally friendly than the alternative, though I imagine it would vary farm by farm based on the philosophy of the farmers.
You witnessed something environmentally friendly, but what is the alternative you're referring to? Something you witnessed first hand?
The alternative being dousing the fields with pesticides and fertilizers, causing runoff into the streams and cause all kinds of problems. Also things like crop dusting being a bit off (due to winds or bad piloting or whatever) and killing off unintended vegetation in addition to the weeds in the field (like a neighbouring house's garden).
I like the concept of GMOs for things like making things more nutritious, but in practice the technology seems to be mostly used to make things like canola resistant to pesticides and herbicides, allowing farmers to use a lot more of them to kill weeds and pests rather than doing the more environmentally friendly alternatives like crop rotation, etc. I think MORE AND MORE PESTICIDES is the wrong direction for farming to go, which seems to be the direction GMOs are taking it.
-
As a teenager I worked on a smaller organic vegetable farm and it was very apparent that the whole thing was way more environmentally friendly than the alternative, though I imagine it would vary farm by farm based on the philosophy of the farmers.
You witnessed something environmentally friendly, but what is the alternative you're referring to? Something you witnessed first hand?
The alternative being dousing the fields with pesticides and fertilizers, causing runoff into the streams and cause all kinds of problems. Also things like crop dusting being a bit off (due to winds or bad piloting or whatever) and killing off unintended vegetation in addition to the weeds in the field (like a neighbouring house's garden).
I like the concept of GMOs for things like making things more nutritious, but in practice the technology seems to be mostly used to make things like canola resistant to pesticides and herbicides, allowing farmers to use a lot more of them to kill weeds and pests rather than doing the more environmentally friendly alternatives like crop rotation, etc. I think MORE AND MORE PESTICIDES is the wrong direction for farming to go, which seems to be the direction GMOs are taking it.
Organic farming does not use fertilizers or pesticides that runoff into our surface and ground water?
-
Below is a link to a summary of an article on a family which switched from conventional food to organic. Key take away, their pesticide levels as measured by blood tests wa significantly lowered. The one main direct health benefit as mentioned earlier, is the lower amount of pesticides ingested by the consumer.
http://www.treehugger.com/family/swedes-show-how-eating-organic-nearly-eliminates-your-pesticide-load.html
I love the banter on GMO's. My take is that they are seeds designed to maximize profit for the seed companies which produce the chemicals which can be sprayed on those very seeds. The business model is fabulous for creating a dependent customer and generating profits. Is it a gain for the farmer, not likely, most don't make enough to support themselves without employment off the farm. Organic growers (non-gmo) tend to earn more than their non conventional counterparts as per the study results noted below.
The study reporting this newfound economic incentive for organics was just published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Its mission was to analyze the “financial competitiveness of organic farming on a global scale” by looking at 44 studies covering 55 crops grown in 14 countries on five continents – North America, Europe, Asia, Central America, and Australia.
The study concluded that organic farming is 22 to 35 percent more profitable for farmers than conventional agriculture.
That's it from me on GMO's.
Full Disclosure: I eat 75%+ organic but for reasons which go beyound just the lower pesticide load.
-
As a teenager I worked on a smaller organic vegetable farm and it was very apparent that the whole thing was way more environmentally friendly than the alternative, though I imagine it would vary farm by farm based on the philosophy of the farmers.
You witnessed something environmentally friendly, but what is the alternative you're referring to? Something you witnessed first hand?
The alternative being dousing the fields with pesticides and fertilizers, causing runoff into the streams and cause all kinds of problems. Also things like crop dusting being a bit off (due to winds or bad piloting or whatever) and killing off unintended vegetation in addition to the weeds in the field (like a neighbouring house's garden).
I like the concept of GMOs for things like making things more nutritious, but in practice the technology seems to be mostly used to make things like canola resistant to pesticides and herbicides, allowing farmers to use a lot more of them to kill weeds and pests rather than doing the more environmentally friendly alternatives like crop rotation, etc. I think MORE AND MORE PESTICIDES is the wrong direction for farming to go, which seems to be the direction GMOs are taking it.
Organic farming does not use fertilizers or pesticides that runoff into our surface and ground water?
No one I worked on, nope. Like I said earlier, the environmental impact seems to depend greatly on the philosophy of the individual farmer. The farm I worked on used the "hire high school students and hand them hoes" method for removing weeds, and mostly used crop rotation, compost, and green manure for keeping the soil fertile.
-
http://www.treehugger.com/family/swedes-show-how-eating-organic-nearly-eliminates-your-pesticide-load.html
The best part of the article is where they demonstrate their commitment to health and well being:
They even found a brand of organic chewing tobacco (snus) for the father of the family.
:P
"No crazy chemicals for us please. Now where's daddy's organic chaw . . . he's jonesin' for some mouth cancer!"
-
Below is a link to a summary of an article on a family which switched from conventional food to organic. Key take away, their pesticide levels as measured by blood tests wa significantly lowered. The one main direct health benefit as mentioned earlier, is the lower amount of pesticides ingested by the consumer.
http://www.treehugger.com/family/swedes-show-how-eating-organic-nearly-eliminates-your-pesticide-load.html
I love the banter on GMO's. My take is that they are seeds designed to maximize profit for the seed companies which produce the chemicals which can be sprayed on those very seeds. The business model is fabulous for creating a dependent customer and generating profits. Is it a gain for the farmer, not likely, most don't make enough to support themselves without employment off the farm. Organic growers (non-gmo) tend to earn more than their non conventional counterparts as per the study results noted below.
The study reporting this newfound economic incentive for organics was just published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Its mission was to analyze the “financial competitiveness of organic farming on a global scale” by looking at 44 studies covering 55 crops grown in 14 countries on five continents – North America, Europe, Asia, Central America, and Australia.
The study concluded that organic farming is 22 to 35 percent more profitable for farmers than conventional agriculture.
That's it from me on GMO's.
Full Disclosure: I eat 75%+ organic but for reasons which go beyound just the lower pesticide load.
GMO crops frequently have the nice feature where they don't produce viable seeds. So you have to go pay Monsanto again next year, whatever price they ask, for your seeds, instead of saving your seeds from the prior year's crop as with normal plants.
-
My problem with this statement:
"Lay people who want to check what the best current scientific consensus is should go to the large scale organizations that represent the relevant scientific community"
is that the "large scale organizations" are often in the pocket or otherwise controlled by a lobby or special interest group trying to protect the product being researched. As an example, I wouldn't trust a study paid for by Monsanto. I also absolutely do not believe that government agencies have our best interests at heart. It is all political and what group donate to whose campaign.
I will read with interest all studies published by major universities and health care centers, however, as an example.
Some studies published by major universities and health care centers are paid for or financially supported by drug companies or other corporate interests.
-
Below is a link to a summary of an article on a family which switched from conventional food to organic. Key take away, their pesticide levels as measured by blood tests wa significantly lowered. The one main direct health benefit as mentioned earlier, is the lower amount of pesticides ingested by the consumer.
http://www.treehugger.com/family/swedes-show-how-eating-organic-nearly-eliminates-your-pesticide-load.html
I love the banter on GMO's. My take is that they are seeds designed to maximize profit for the seed companies which produce the chemicals which can be sprayed on those very seeds. The business model is fabulous for creating a dependent customer and generating profits. Is it a gain for the farmer, not likely, most don't make enough to support themselves without employment off the farm. Organic growers (non-gmo) tend to earn more than their non conventional counterparts as per the study results noted below.
The study reporting this newfound economic incentive for organics was just published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Its mission was to analyze the “financial competitiveness of organic farming on a global scale” by looking at 44 studies covering 55 crops grown in 14 countries on five continents – North America, Europe, Asia, Central America, and Australia.
The study concluded that organic farming is 22 to 35 percent more profitable for farmers than conventional agriculture.
That's it from me on GMO's.
Full Disclosure: I eat 75%+ organic but for reasons which go beyound just the lower pesticide load.
GMO crops frequently have the nice feature where they don't produce viable seeds. So you have to go pay Monsanto again next year, whatever price they ask, for your seeds, instead of saving your seeds from the prior year's crop as with normal plants.
Lots of misinformation and misconceptions here.
No, not normal plants. Heirloom varieties of certain plants. Seed companies are good at producing seed. It's great that gardeners and small farmers grow varieties and save seed. But many small growers actually find that seed is not expensive. It's the least of their expenses. I talk regularly with small sustainable aquaponic growers and they don't save seed. It's not worth their time.
Many crops are hybrids, and those seeds (even if not GMO) also need to be bought every year.
And sterile or terminator GMO traits/seeds are a myth. If you make statements like this please check your sources before doing so.
https://gmoanswers.com/ask/i-keep-reading-about-how-monsantos-seeds-and-other-gm-seeds-become-sterile-and-unusable-farmers
-
Below is a link to a summary of an article on a family which switched from conventional food to organic. Key take away, their pesticide levels as measured by blood tests wa significantly lowered. The one main direct health benefit as mentioned earlier, is the lower amount of pesticides ingested by the consumer.
http://www.treehugger.com/family/swedes-show-how-eating-organic-nearly-eliminates-your-pesticide-load.html
I love the banter on GMO's. My take is that they are seeds designed to maximize profit for the seed companies which produce the chemicals which can be sprayed on those very seeds. The business model is fabulous for creating a dependent customer and generating profits. Is it a gain for the farmer, not likely, most don't make enough to support themselves without employment off the farm. Organic growers (non-gmo) tend to earn more than their non conventional counterparts as per the study results noted below.
The study reporting this newfound economic incentive for organics was just published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Its mission was to analyze the “financial competitiveness of organic farming on a global scale” by looking at 44 studies covering 55 crops grown in 14 countries on five continents – North America, Europe, Asia, Central America, and Australia.
The study concluded that organic farming is 22 to 35 percent more profitable for farmers than conventional agriculture.
That's it from me on GMO's.
Full Disclosure: I eat 75%+ organic but for reasons which go beyound just the lower pesticide load.
GMO crops frequently have the nice feature where they don't produce viable seeds. So you have to go pay Monsanto again next year, whatever price they ask, for your seeds, instead of saving your seeds from the prior year's crop as with normal plants.
Lots of misinformation and misconceptions here.
No, not normal plants. Heirloom varieties of certain plants. Seed companies are good at producing seed. It's great that gardeners and small farmers grow varieties and save seed. But many small growers actually find that seed is not expensive. It's the least of their expenses. I talk regularly with small sustainable aquaponic growers and they don't save seed. It's not worth their time.
Many crops are hybrids, and those seeds (even if not GMO) also need to be bought every year.
And sterile or terminator GMO traits/seeds are a myth. If you make statements like this please check your sources before doing so.
https://gmoanswers.com/ask/i-keep-reading-about-how-monsantos-seeds-and-other-gm-seeds-become-sterile-and-unusable-farmers
You could be right. This idea, whether true or untrue, is all over the place. I see Monsanto's 1999 statement saying they won't do it (but with a bunch of stuff in it that I don't understand well enough to know if there are loopholes in the language). And lots of places saying it's true, and lots of places saying the opposite. I don't know for sure, but I think what you say is most likely correct.
-
Why is non-GMO a "benefit"?
It's a benefit if you don't understand science.
Yeah like science has never been wrong. Not too long ago many scientist thought that leaded gas was safe for humans.
The reason science works is that it uses the best known evidence at the time to draw conclusions. If new evidence is brought forward, the conclusion is revised.
Could science be wrong about GMOs? Sure, there's an outside possibility of anything. To date there exists no evidence that genetically modified food is more dangerous that regular food though (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601831-little-state-could-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601831-little-state-could-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977/safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods-approaches-to-assessing-unintended-health#toc (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977/safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods-approaches-to-assessing-unintended-health#toc), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/), http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf), http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long (http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long)). Believing otherwise is a leap of faith based on opinion, not valid data.
Trying to use the fact that science corrects its mistakes as an indicator that we should ignore the best scientific information is a facile argument.
Skepticism in science is healthy and leads to progress. I also think that lay people can be skeptical of current science even if we can't ourselves test our hypotheses. That should not be exclusive to scientist.
Absolutely. Skepticism leads to questions, then you need to look at the data to find answers to your questions. Just being skeptical without legitimately looking into an issue leads to very bad decisions though. A lot of foolishness (anti-vaccine hysteria, climate change denial, and homeopathy, etc.) is directly linked to skepticism without research.
Well said, and oh so true.
When I think organic I think of veggies and fruits for some reason, not near, and concerning pesticides, how does organic truly contain less pesticides? If you didn't use pesticides, there would be spots and holes all in your produce.
-
What is worse, autism or cancer from pesticides?? That is like when you are voting and you have to chose a candidate who is the least likely corrupted
What a hateful thing to say about people with autism!
-
What is worse, autism or cancer from pesticides?? That is like when you are voting and you have to chose a candidate who is the least likely corrupted
What a hateful thing to say about people with autism!
I was being sarcastic,but I guess it came out wrong, sorry if I offended you.
-
Below is a link to a summary of an article on a family which switched from conventional food to organic. Key take away, their pesticide levels as measured by blood tests wa significantly lowered. The one main direct health benefit as mentioned earlier, is the lower amount of pesticides ingested by the consumer.
http://www.treehugger.com/family/swedes-show-how-eating-organic-nearly-eliminates-your-pesticide-load.html
I love the banter on GMO's. My take is that they are seeds designed to maximize profit for the seed companies which produce the chemicals which can be sprayed on those very seeds. The business model is fabulous for creating a dependent customer and generating profits. Is it a gain for the farmer, not likely, most don't make enough to support themselves without employment off the farm. Organic growers (non-gmo) tend to earn more than their non conventional counterparts as per the study results noted below.
The study reporting this newfound economic incentive for organics was just published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Its mission was to analyze the “financial competitiveness of organic farming on a global scale” by looking at 44 studies covering 55 crops grown in 14 countries on five continents – North America, Europe, Asia, Central America, and Australia.
The study concluded that organic farming is 22 to 35 percent more profitable for farmers than conventional agriculture.
That's it from me on GMO's.
Full Disclosure: I eat 75%+ organic but for reasons which go beyound just the lower pesticide load.
GMO crops frequently have the nice feature where they don't produce viable seeds. So you have to go pay Monsanto again next year, whatever price they ask, for your seeds, instead of saving your seeds from the prior year's crop as with normal plants.
Lots of misinformation and misconceptions here.
No, not normal plants. Heirloom varieties of certain plants. Seed companies are good at producing seed. It's great that gardeners and small farmers grow varieties and save seed. But many small growers actually find that seed is not expensive. It's the least of their expenses. I talk regularly with small sustainable aquaponic growers and they don't save seed. It's not worth their time.
Many crops are hybrids, and those seeds (even if not GMO) also need to be bought every year.
And sterile or terminator GMO traits/seeds are a myth. If you make statements like this please check your sources before doing so.
https://gmoanswers.com/ask/i-keep-reading-about-how-monsantos-seeds-and-other-gm-seeds-become-sterile-and-unusable-farmers
Thank you for this link. Very interesting. I am not anti-GMO, and recently got into a heated debate with a very intelligent friend who is virulently anti-GMO. The myth of sterile seeds figured prominently in that discussion. I had no idea it wasn't true.
-
If you need more material for debating anti-GMO types, GMOanswers.com is a good source.
Another good general site is the geneticliteracyproject.org
Biofortified.org is another good one. Here's some from Bill Nye
http://www.biofortified.org/2015/04/bill-nye-science-guy-and-gmos-oh-my/
Also check out my former colleague Kevin Folta's page: either his blog http://kfolta.blogspot.com/ or twitter @kevinfolta
an interview:
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/kevin-folta-interview-yes-im-a-shill-not-for-big-but-for-science/
I have a good compilation on the facebook group page for my class last semester, too. Was one of the topics we covered in depth.
here are some good ones
http://theconversation.com/not-all-gmo-plants-are-created-equally-its-the-trait-not-the-method-thats-important-39532
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/28/we-re-paranoid-about-gmo-foods-because-of-pseudo-science.html?via=desktop&source=facebook
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/study-reveals-wide-opinion-differences-scientists-general-public/#
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-gmo-debate-5-things-to-stop-arguing/2014/10/27/e82bbc10-5a3e-11e4-b812-38518ae74c67_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/gmo-common-ground-where-supporters-and-opponents-agree/2013/11/11/b91efcdc-47cc-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html
And finally, some cautions about bad science and the damage it can do
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/condemning-monsanto-with-_b_3162694.html
-
If you need more material for debating anti-GMO types, GMOanswers.com is a good source.
Another good general site is the geneticliteracyproject.org
Biofortified.org is another good one. Here's some from Bill Nye
http://www.biofortified.org/2015/04/bill-nye-science-guy-and-gmos-oh-my/
Also check out my former colleague Kevin Folta's page: either his blog http://kfolta.blogspot.com/ or twitter @kevinfolta
an interview:
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/kevin-folta-interview-yes-im-a-shill-not-for-big-but-for-science/
I have a good compilation on the facebook group page for my class last semester, too. Was one of the topics we covered in depth.
here are some good ones
http://theconversation.com/not-all-gmo-plants-are-created-equally-its-the-trait-not-the-method-thats-important-39532
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/28/we-re-paranoid-about-gmo-foods-because-of-pseudo-science.html?via=desktop&source=facebook
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/study-reveals-wide-opinion-differences-scientists-general-public/#
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-gmo-debate-5-things-to-stop-arguing/2014/10/27/e82bbc10-5a3e-11e4-b812-38518ae74c67_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/gmo-common-ground-where-supporters-and-opponents-agree/2013/11/11/b91efcdc-47cc-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html
And finally, some cautions about bad science and the damage it can do
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/condemning-monsanto-with-_b_3162694.html
Thanks for the reading materials!
-
It really depends.
If you read technical farming manuals, it's very clear an "organic" certified farm can be just as abusive to the environment and its workers as a conventional farm. In some cases, organic farming can even be worse (two examples: overuse of mechanical tillage to control weeds and the fact that many organic pesticides are more broadly toxic).
The best solution is to buy as much as possible from local farms, ideally ones you can vet. Most farmers are more than happy to talk your ears off about their methods. Many don't bother with organic certification because of the expense and paperwork overhead, but farm in very sustainable fashion. Even in my cold climate, you can buy local produce all 12 months of the year. In the cold months, it comes from root cellar stored crops or from hoop house operations.
Sometimes local costs more, sometimes it doesn't. It almost universally tastes better because it is FRESH. It lasts longer too, so there's usually much less potential for waste.
I try as much as possible to eat within our local biosphere, but the tastes of the rest of my family do require compromises. Eating seasonally is at first a challenge to adjust, but once you do it's actually a really nice rhythm to keep.
When it comes to meat and animal products, organic is meaningless. Other labels like "free range" and "cage free" are equally meaningless unless you personally vet the farmer. Vetting isn't hard at all, since meat is best bought 1-2x a year in bulk, so it's not a constant transaction.
Comments up thread about red meat are really misinformed. Beef (and other ruminants) raised in a rotational grazing pasture model are absolutely sustainable. The vast majority of US pasture is marginal for other production, so you're raising human calories on non-human calorie producing land. Chicken is actually the least sustainable meat product out there since very few breeds can fatten 100% on pasture. Grain is almost always required as supplemental feed, whereas ruminants can be fattened 100% on pasture and hay.
Pork is a mixed bag, depending on the farmer. Usually pastured pork is roughly 50/50 forage and grain, but pork CAN be fattened on pasture with proper breed and management. Hard to find in US, or at least in my area. At the same time, pigs dress out very efficiently compared to other large animals, so pork is one of my favorite sustainable sources of protein.
-
Definitely no GMO. I would vote to have it entirely removed from the food supply like in most rational countries. This isn't your fathers GMO.
-
Definitely no GMO. I would vote to have it entirely removed from the food supply like in most rational countries. This isn't your fathers GMO.
Yeah...who needs disease and drought resistant crops, increased yields, or increased nutrients?? All those things are highly overrated.
-
Definitely no GMO. I would vote to have it entirely removed from the food supply like in most rational countries. This isn't your fathers GMO.
There just isn't a good reason for this.
-
Definitely no GMO. I would vote to have it entirely removed from the food supply like in most rational countries. This isn't your fathers GMO.
There just isn't a good reason for this.
When someone makes a blanket statement like that, you can usually be sure that it's not based on any real knowledge of the topic.
-
I was being sarcastic,but I guess it came out wrong, sorry if I offended you.
Gotcha. Other people have said the same thing in seriousness so it's hard to tell the difference!
-
I used to be strongly anti-gmo, but now I have changed my thinking a bit. We now own an organic farm that is sandwiched in between endless field of corn and soybeans. The spraying that I used to be afraid of has proven to be little of an issue as it is done so infrequently. I had more of an issue with people in town and their constant use of herbicides and pesticides. Also, my husbands job has him working inside the walls of companies like Monsanto. These companies are not nearly as evil as I feared. My biggest issue at this time is with the so called "suicide" seeds that cannot be replanted. This binds the farmer to the seed company and could cause issues with food security. In the grocery stores, there is not much reason to buy organic over non organic. The labels don't mean much, especially when it comes to animal products. I do sometimes find the organic varieties to be tastier.
For my own family, we try to first and foremost raise and grow our own food. For any meat that we outsource, we buy from a local grass-fed farm. The taste is significantly better and there is less of an environmental impact. We try to buy our produce in season from ALDI, which is also when it is cheapest. We do not buy organic.
-
To the original question, I happened to just be reading an article that addresses this point: Is organic food worth the higher price? Many experts say no (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20150519-column.html)
There are some omissions and incomplete details, but it seemed like a well written and useful article, for the popular press.
I am concerned about the impact many farming methods have on the environment, surrounding water, people who work the farms and the animals we raise for meat, but I'd be skeptical of any claims that suggest a difference to consumer health, at least from consuming organic vs conventional crops. I do feel the environmental impact issue is better address at the regulation level then through trying to buy organic, but perhaps it's a start (I don't know enough about this issue).
So we don't go out of our way to buy organic, and I have no problem at all with GMO crops, in fact I think GMO and other technologies might be a great way to reduce the over reliance on pesticides especially, while maintaining economic growing conditions. If you could find me a label that let me buy food bought with less pesticide and fertilizer use, using GMO as needed, I'd be all over that. Organic isn't that label.
We do try, somewhat, to limit our meat consumption based on raising/living conditions.. then again, if we really cared about animal welfare maybe we wouldn't be eating them in the first place, so perhaps that's a moot point too :)
As other people have said, our best produce buying experience has probably been with a CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community-supported_agriculture). It was relatively cheap, very convenient, and the produce was delicious. I think the difference in taste was noticeable (and I don't have the finest palette) because it was hyper local, and the only things being sent to you was what the farmer thought was the best to harvest at that time.. it wasn't defined by just getting stuff out to the wholesaler and getting some bulk rate.
The communication with farm was also excellent. When we initially signed up, it was an organic farm.. part of the time through, they decided there was some kind of new mulch or something that they wanted to use, which hadn't yet worked it's way into the organic regulations. They thought it was the best alternative out there, and communicated that they were purposely giving up their organic certification to use it. I thought that was great.
-
If you could find me a label that let me buy food bought with less pesticide and fertilizer use, using GMO as needed, I'd be all over that. Organic isn't that label.
...
CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community-supported_agriculture).
I think the difference in taste was noticeable (and I don't have the finest palette) because it was hyper local, and the only things being sent to you was what the farmer thought was the best to harvest at that time.. it wasn't defined by just getting stuff out to the wholesaler and getting some bulk rate.
Well put!
CSA= fresh and local, harvested when perfectly ripe, but also, you're likely noticing that your farmers are using some better tasting varieties that might not do as well when produced on a large scale.
I've been a CSA member for close to 20 years. We've stopped the last two years only because we get sufficient veggies from friends' gardens.
-
I work in medical research and actually there is some evidence that buying organic veggies doesn't have a ton of impact. However, buying organic fruits does have health impacts (why one and not the other? we don't know yet- some theorize it has to do with the way we metabolize sugar). Also, buying pasture raised, grass fed meats also makes has a statistically significant impact on risk for colon cancer, prostate cancer and certain cardiovascular diseases.
-
My problem with this statement:
"Lay people who want to check what the best current scientific consensus is should go to the large scale organizations that represent the relevant scientific community"
is that the "large scale organizations" are often in the pocket or otherwise controlled by a lobby or special interest group trying to protect the product being researched. As an example, I wouldn't trust a study paid for by Monsanto.
I meant things like the NAS, the AAAS, AMA (for medicine) or similar (there's lots of them; they vary in type from prestigious organizations where membership is a reward for being a really good scientist to being educational institutions). The usually give position statements on issues that represent the consensus of the relevant community. For example, here's the NAS popular publication (with the Royal Society, which is the UK version) on climate change: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18730/climate-change-evidence-and-causes
Your concern about funding is irrelevant if the results have passed peer review for a respectable scientific journal. That means that the people most qualified to comment have determined that the experiments were performed correctly. The scientists would literally have to lie or distort their results for the papers not to be telling the truth. Doing this is absolute career suicide for any scientist. Period.
This "often in the pocket of [Monsanto-or-whoever]" claim is nonsense. These corporations don't (and can't afford to) fund most scientific research. Most scientific research is paid for by universities and government organizations.
Besides, I have no idea why you are so absolutely biased against Monsanto. They have motivation to not tell the whole truth, but occasionally they could (*gasp*) be right and there are quite serious costs to their lying too egregiously. This Monsanto/Big Pharma/Whatever Corporation-are-the-devil nonsense is another bit of leftie hippie sh*t we really need to stop because it verges on negative magical thinking. And I'm left-libertarian by persuasion.
I also absolutely do not believe that government agencies have our best interests at heart. It is all political and what group donate to whose campaign.
This totally depends on what those agencies rely on to make the calls and who is heading them. Last time I looked their members were not elected, and most are not even political appointees. Their members are usually qualified scientists and their opinions are usually based on research that is open to all. If, say, the FDA or whatever go straight against what the scientific consensus says about a particular area, you will hear about it. This is not generally the case; what usually happens is where the nature of the problem/drug/procedure/phenomenon is not yet fully understood, a call has to be made that some scientists might agree or disagree with. Government agencies tend to be quite conservative in this regard, if anything.
Much more important than any trivial bias in scientific results are the flaws in untutored human "reason". Homo sapiens is shockingly bad, among other things at probabilistic reasoning, confirming/disconfirming hypotheses and being ludicrously over-confident in their abilities. This is the best reason of all for lay people to distrust themselves (yes, I said it and it's true) and trust scientific research.
I should also add that "argument from authority" is only a deductive, not an inductive fallacy. Appropriate authorities/experts are excellent sources of reliable information. It is appropriate to trust them because you CANNOT DO BETTER YOURSELF.
-
Ambergris,
How do you reconcile instances where other nations ban food or food product for being unsafe, supported by their research, and the US concludes it is safe, supported by their research? One example is red dye 40. I've only looked into this because I have a legitimate allergy to the product. That's not why the UK banned it. They banned it because their studies showed it was causing aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders, among other reasons.
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/06/25/8-foods-we-eat-that-other-countries-ban/
-
Ambergris,
How do you reconcile instances where other nations ban food or food product for being unsafe, supported by their research, and the US concludes it is safe, supported by their research? One example is red dye 40. I've only looked into this because I have a legitimate allergy to the product. That's not why the UK banned it. They banned it because their studies showed it was causing aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders, among other reasons.
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/06/25/8-foods-we-eat-that-other-countries-ban/
So your statement is that red dye 40 causes aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders and you link a bullet list of things that are banned in other countries as your proof? Furthermore looking down the rabbit hole of information and links the organization that petitioned the removal has no mention of behavior disorders regarding red dye 40 except for an empty unsupported claim at the end of a red dye 40 summary on page 32 of the pdf linked below. The only leg they stand on is that red dye 40 may metabolize into a carcinogen when tested on rats, maybe, and maybe when the rats diet is 5.19% red dye 40... maybe. Lots of maybes for extreme situations.
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food-dyes-rainbow-of-risks.pdf
Bad conclusions based on bad interpretations of science can still be bad conclusions. Organizations of people can still run into the same fallacies as individuals themselves. This is an example of one of them. That's how you reconcile those instances. When people make shitty conclusions based on science or shitty conclusions of bad science. Can go either way.
-
Ambergris,
How do you reconcile instances where other nations ban food or food product for being unsafe, supported by their research, and the US concludes it is safe, supported by their research? One example is red dye 40. I've only looked into this because I have a legitimate allergy to the product. That's not why the UK banned it. They banned it because their studies showed it was causing aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders, among other reasons.
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/06/25/8-foods-we-eat-that-other-countries-ban/
So your statement is that red dye 40 causes aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders and you link a bullet list of things that are banned in other countries as your proof? Furthermore looking down the rabbit hole of information and links the organization that petitioned the removal has no mention of behavior disorders regarding red dye 40 except for an empty unsupported claim at the end of a red dye 40 summary on page 32 of the pdf linked below. The only leg they stand on is that red dye 40 may metabolize into a carcinogen when tested on rats, maybe, and maybe when the rats diet is 5.19% red dye 40... maybe. Lots of maybes for extreme situations.
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food-dyes-rainbow-of-risks.pdf
Bad conclusions based on bad interpretations of science can still be bad conclusions. Organizations of people can still run into the same fallacies as individuals themselves. This is an example of one of them. That's how you reconcile those instances. When people make shitty conclusions based on science or shitty conclusions of bad science. Can go either way.
My post was unclear. I was just using that link to show that there are items banned in other countries that are allowed here. Not to show you why those countries banned those items. I figured you could each do your own research on that. So you are saying that the other countries that banned items that are allowed here relied on bad science and our science is the good science? I'm not saying just because something is banned elsewhere it is bad but obviously one of the two countries is relying on bad data and I'm not going to just assume we are the right (or wrong) one.
Also, I said I avoid red dye because I have a legitimate traditional allergy to it (hives and swelling) not because of behavior issues.
-
Ambergris,
How do you reconcile instances where other nations ban food or food product for being unsafe, supported by their research, and the US concludes it is safe, supported by their research? One example is red dye 40. I've only looked into this because I have a legitimate allergy to the product. That's not why the UK banned it. They banned it because their studies showed it was causing aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders, among other reasons.
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/06/25/8-foods-we-eat-that-other-countries-ban/
So your statement is that red dye 40 causes aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders and you link a bullet list of things that are banned in other countries as your proof? Furthermore looking down the rabbit hole of information and links the organization that petitioned the removal has no mention of behavior disorders regarding red dye 40 except for an empty unsupported claim at the end of a red dye 40 summary on page 32 of the pdf linked below. The only leg they stand on is that red dye 40 may metabolize into a carcinogen when tested on rats, maybe, and maybe when the rats diet is 5.19% red dye 40... maybe. Lots of maybes for extreme situations.
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food-dyes-rainbow-of-risks.pdf
Bad conclusions based on bad interpretations of science can still be bad conclusions. Organizations of people can still run into the same fallacies as individuals themselves. This is an example of one of them. That's how you reconcile those instances. When people make shitty conclusions based on science or shitty conclusions of bad science. Can go either way.
My post was unclear. I was just using that link to show that there are items banned in other countries that are allowed here. Not to show you why those countries banned those items. I figured you could each do your own research on that. So you are saying that the other countries that banned items that are allowed here relied on bad science and our science is the good science? I'm not saying just because something is banned elsewhere it is bad but obviously one of the two countries is relying on bad data and I'm not going to just assume we are the right (or wrong) one.
Also, I said I avoid red dye because I have a legitimate traditional allergy to it (hives and swelling) not because of behavior issues.
Nope, we're not the "good" interpreters of science and they the "bad". My statement was that there are bad interpretations of science. Any particular banning may or may not be an example of that.
*Edit* But you did assume that there science was legitimate. I bolded above where.
-
Ambergris,
How do you reconcile instances where other nations ban food or food product for being unsafe, supported by their research, and the US concludes it is safe, supported by their research? One example is red dye 40. I've only looked into this because I have a legitimate allergy to the product. That's not why the UK banned it. They banned it because their studies showed it was causing aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders, among other reasons.
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/06/25/8-foods-we-eat-that-other-countries-ban/
So your statement is that red dye 40 causes aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders and you link a bullet list of things that are banned in other countries as your proof? Furthermore looking down the rabbit hole of information and links the organization that petitioned the removal has no mention of behavior disorders regarding red dye 40 except for an empty unsupported claim at the end of a red dye 40 summary on page 32 of the pdf linked below. The only leg they stand on is that red dye 40 may metabolize into a carcinogen when tested on rats, maybe, and maybe when the rats diet is 5.19% red dye 40... maybe. Lots of maybes for extreme situations.
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food-dyes-rainbow-of-risks.pdf
Bad conclusions based on bad interpretations of science can still be bad conclusions. Organizations of people can still run into the same fallacies as individuals themselves. This is an example of one of them. That's how you reconcile those instances. When people make shitty conclusions based on science or shitty conclusions of bad science. Can go either way.
My post was unclear. I was just using that link to show that there are items banned in other countries that are allowed here. Not to show you why those countries banned those items. I figured you could each do your own research on that. So you are saying that the other countries that banned items that are allowed here relied on bad science and our science is the good science? I'm not saying just because something is banned elsewhere it is bad but obviously one of the two countries is relying on bad data and I'm not going to just assume we are the right (or wrong) one.
Also, I said I avoid red dye because I have a legitimate traditional allergy to it (hives and swelling) not because of behavior issues.
*Edit* But you did assume that there science was legitimate. I bolded above where.
Wasn't relying on the AARP article for that. Previous research I did. I don't know if it was scientific or not. Just an area that interests me because of my allergy. I actually heard about the ban long before that article came out because parents in my mother's class (she's a teacher) stopped allowing their kids snacks w/ the dye because of the UK ban. I guess it hit the parent internet forums before the mainstream media.
Nope, we're not the "good" interpreters of science and they the "bad". My statement was that there are bad interpretations of science. Any particular banning may or may not be an example of that.
-
I'd generally say no.
I'm constantly amused by friends who insist on buying organic this, and organic that for home consumption because it's so much healthier than non-organic, and then go out for a meal and eat shitty greasy food. Riiiiiiight. Like the morbidly obese chick who orders the king size candy bar and the jumbo tub of popcorn with extra butter at the movies but then gets the diet soda "to be healthy"...it doesn't exactly cancel out.
Eat predominately healthy non-processed foods, avoid processed and fast food. Congrats, you're in the top 1% of Americans for healthy diet. Incremental gain on going from 100% healthy produce diet to 100% organic produce diet is minimal, but the cost difference can be +100% or more.
-
I'm skeptical about how good organic really is so I only buy it if there is a minimal price difference and will last longer without spoiling. I noticed organic carrots are only about 30 cents more at my market and they last twice as long in the fridge as the non-organic. I did buy organic whole grain bread yesterday since it was $1 off and only about $1 more than the standard whole grain stuff. My wife thought it tasted great. It was the only one that I could find without sugar as a main ingredient but I wouldn't buy it every time. We aren't huge bread eaters, mainly just for PB&J or PB&Fluffs.
-
What is the point of looking for low-sugar bread if you're eating it with jelly or marshmallow fluff?
-
Good point lol I guess it's the "better than nothing" thought process ala Big Mac with Diet soda.
-
Eat predominately healthy non-processed foods, avoid processed and fast food. Congrats, you're in the top 1% of Americans for healthy diet. Incremental gain on going from 100% healthy produce diet to 100% organic produce diet is minimal, but the cost difference can be +100% or more.
Yep, and I tend to think that it's unhealthy for physically well people to be so twisted up about what goes into their bodies. I understand the fear, but obsessive diet management is more neurotic than it is healthy.
The organic question seems much more relevant to people who're in poor health. I have some serious immune issues--would I benefit from avoiding certain pesticides? Dunno, but I'd bet that chronically ill folks have more to gain by asking these questions than healthy folks.
-
OP here. Reason I asked the organic food question was because I'm starting to feed my baby solids (she was purely on breast milk till now). Everyone says organic is better or equal to normal food. My question was how much better and of it was worth the cost. Though we can't make my baby eat only organic (she chews on every. single. thing she can get her hands on), I was curious if eating organic predominantly made a difference to her growing body.
-
No. There's no reason to believe your baby will do better (or worse for that matter aside from the slightly higher risk of food poisoning) with organic food. We don't buy organic and our child has done great with solids pretty much from the beginning.
Not relevant, but we found the idea of baby-led weaning to be very helpful. There's a decently written e-book on it but it pretty much amounts to - feed your kid what you're eating for dinner, cutting it up well, and she won't be a picky eater. My girl certainly isn't picky...
-
We did the baby led weaning, and it worked well. We never actually pureed anything (thank God, because it seems like such a lot of work), our kid just immediately started munching away on small bits of soft foods.
-
I thought of this thread when I read this post today.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/29/organic-milk-vs-conventional-milk-why-nutrition-expert-is-ditching-organic/
-
Ambergris,
How do you reconcile instances where other nations ban food or food product for being unsafe, supported by their research, and the US concludes it is safe, supported by their research? One example is red dye 40. I've only looked into this because I have a legitimate allergy to the product. That's not why the UK banned it. They banned it because their studies showed it was causing aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders, among other reasons.
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/06/25/8-foods-we-eat-that-other-countries-ban/
"Research" isn't enough (and I should have been clearer at the end there): the research has to be gotten to the point where there is a scientific consensus for it to be fully trustworthy. As I said, there are cases where there isn't a settled answer in the scientific community, but where the government institution has to - or is bullied into - making a call. This call can be based just on being over-cautious. In the case you mention above, the UK actually does not ban the substance, although other European countries do. There is some weak connection with allergies, cancer and hyperactivity, but both are based on poor studies.
In the case of GMO food, there is an emerging scientific consensus, and that is that (those foods tested) really are no worse for you than regular ones. Requiring them to be labeled would be an egregious case of bending to public pressure. With organics, the consensus either for or against them isn't as strong.