What is Digg?119 Comments
- socialpyramid, on 02/05/2008, -2/+22The other way to look at this is that it can also boost consumer confidence in the organic labels when things are done right.
- inactive, on 02/05/2008, -2/+12***** is good. Proper bowel movement will lead to better health. You should eat More organic.
- unpolloloco, on 02/05/2008, -10/+18i thought organic was a fraud in the first place - although a great way to sell food for more money
- ORMEs, on 02/05/2008, -8/+15I'll take organic food from my garden or the local farmer's market over pesticided, herbicided, larvicided, fungicided, chemicaly modified, hormonally altered, genetically modified, pasteurized, homogenized "foods" ANY day.
- breadbin, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7Organic products should be viewed with a healthy dose of scepticism if you ask me. If you think they taste better then go for it, it's your wallet, but don't assume that organic farming produces magical crops that are imbued with properties that can't be found in those produced by modern agricultural science.
Here's an interesting article, which also touches on the commonalities in the way people view terms like "organic" as well as "herbal" and "holistic."
http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/08/fault-line- ... - fzagruzny, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7do you ever think the difference in taste might just be cognitive? i mean if you pay more for the same apple, then human nature dictates that you will probably convince yourself that the more expensive apple tastes better when it actually doesn't. as for the color, there are a lot of shades of non-organic red, green, and yellow apples. maybe whole foods just carries the lighter ones.
- satanatnmtedu, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7Nutrition is no different. What is different is the growing method. And, even that is rife with *****, so to speak. Crowing about not using chemical fertilizers, but manure is a ***** chemical. It is like the claim that all natural must be better; yet, there are many natural plants that can kill you when ingested.
- londubh, on 02/05/2008, -2/+81) USDA and/or FDA is getting lax. 2) companies are trying to weaken organic food standards. 3) companies love greenwashing.
- brufleth, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6Which pesticides and preservatives are they using in organic milk vs non organic? Have you tried washing your fruits and vegetables?
I'm not saying you're a liar but I am saying that the organic food craze was created to improve profit margins on foods. It often doesn't mean what someone would logically expect it to mean. - ClOlD, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5Everytime I hear someone mention "organic" food I want to punch them in the face. What a load of new-age anti-science crap.
If you don't like pesticides, just say so! If you want humanely raised meat, just say so! If you don't want someone "playing god" with genetics, just say so! I can get on board with some of those causes, but at least have the decency to say what it is you're trying to support.
But trying to change the meaning of a scientific term for a political purpose is crossing the line in my mind. Unless you're only eating salt and water, ALL your food is organic! - rarson, on 02/05/2008, -1/+6Blah blah blah, the little bit of what I read of your wall of text tells me you didn't read my comment at all. GE crops have saved over a BILLION people, you pompous prick.
- RyeBrye, on 02/05/2008, -2/+7My father-in-law is one of the worlds leading experts on apple crops... I've talked to him a bit about his take on Organic foods, and his point-of-view is: whatever helps the farmer...
Although quotes like this are incorrect:
"Organic foods are grown without the use of chemical fertilizers, which are often derived from natural gas and/or phosphates minded from the Earth; without the use of chemical pesticides designed to kill weeds, insects or diseases, and without the use of genetically engineered seeds."
That's not true. They do use pesticide, fertilizer, fungicide, and weed killer... They just use "organic" versions of each... which... by the way - are nowhere near as efficient as the non-organic versions so they need to spray five or six times more frequently. They also use "organic" fungicide... etc. In his words, he explains that anyone trying to grow apples without using these thing would result in a crop so "badly mangled, bruised, and wormy" that nobody would ever want to buy it at a supermarket...
I assume the same scenario applies to just about any other "organic" food you might be buying. - sockpuppets, on 02/05/2008, -4/+9From the same government that saved us from lead toys?
- spidoman, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5Just like audiophiles can swear to hear a difference. Guess what, the difference doesn't matter.
- ClOlD, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5Conformist. Would you have stopped buying it if no one told you about these lapses? Could you taste any difference?
No. Because it's THE SAME ***** MILK. - minoss, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5Guess what, most mammals have over 90% of our same genome. Should we consider them 90% human?
Your post shows what little you actually know about GE foods. GE foods are devised to be more resilient to predators and disease, increase yield, and grow in habitats they couldn't usually grow. The later mainly to bring food to those areas lacking it and unable to grow it. Because if this, it's helped millions of people ***** LIVE. - mountainsurfer, on 02/05/2008, -2/+6It's about damn time.
- akatsuki, on 02/05/2008, -2/+6Well, they prevent toxic pesticides from leeching into the groundwater and affecting the workers' health if not yours. Antibiotic free meat helps to reduce the incidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
- rarson, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5Genetically modified? What is wrong with GE crops?
The man who pioneered them, Norman Borlaug, has saved over a billion people through his work. Norman Borlaug. Norman Borlaug. I'm repeating his name because I don't want you to forget the name of the greatest human being that has ever lived. Saved over a BILLION people. Norman Borlaug.
You should just feel lucky that you have the luxury to choose what to eat. I know I do. - zeebo, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4It should be pointed out that the 'large food growers' are just as involved in organic produce as they are in ordinary produce.
- ORMEs, on 02/05/2008, -3/+6The famous 12-year Schuphan study tested the nutritional superiority of organically grown foods. Among other things, Schuphan found:
1. Organic foods have far higher mineral and trace mineral contents, with the exception of sodium Organic produce contains far more iron, potassium, magnesium and calcium than conventional crops. (Most studies of this type demonstrate that organic foods have 2 to 10 times the mineral content of conventional foods - you really do get more value for the money).
2. Organic spinach contained 64-78% more vitamin C.
3. Organic Savoy cabbage contained 76-91% more vitamin C.
4. Organic crops had a dry weight (after dehydration) of 69-96% more than conventional crops, demonstrating high-food value content.
In 1993, Bob Smith, a trace minerals laboratory analyst, began a small experiment. For two years he visited stores in Chicago and purchased 4 to 15 samples of both organic and commercial produce. He brought these samples back to his laboratory and tested them for trace elements. His conclusions were as follows:
1. Organically grown wheat had twice the calcium, four times more magnesium, give times more manganese, and thirteen times more selenium than the commercial wheat.
2. Organically grown corn had twenty times more calcium and manganese, and two to five times more copper, magnesium, molybdenum, selenium and zinc.
3. Organically grown potatoes had two or more times the boron, selenium, silicon, strontium and sulfur, and 60% more zing.
4. Organically grown pears had two to nearly three times more chromium, iodine, manganese, molybdenum, silicon and zinc.
Overall, organically-grown food exceeded commercial-grown crops significantly for twenty of the twenty-two beneficial trace minerals. Organic foods also had lower quantities of toxic trace elements, such as aluminum, lead, and mercury.
Pesticides are poison. - tech42er, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Absolutely. Genetically engineered food will allow for much larger yields, cutting down on starvation and malnutrition.
- bfrank72, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Nutritional adaptation at its worst.
- tech42er, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Right, and they have that choice. Or would you force people to only eat healthy food?
- yodaj007, on 02/05/2008, -3/+6You eat it, then get the *****.
You eat it, then get the *****.
You eat it, then get the *****.
Maybe you should learn and STOP EATING IT. Why haven't you learned that yet? - RyeBrye, on 02/05/2008, -1/+4No... "Large food growers" grow for the greatest $ yield per hectare. This means a combination of many variables. Shelf-life is one of them, but taste is also very important. I don't know where you are getting your romantic notion of the "small grower" but relatives on my wifes side are fruit and chili farmers. With 200 acres they support a family - but are not rich... Anything less than that and they'd be starved. They employ a lot of workers to help harvest and plant. They are as small as you can get, but they are still larger than most people would think when they would think of "small farmers"
- DrThunder, on 02/05/2008, -2/+5Organic food it's self is a fraud. If the whole planet went organic half the people on earth would starve. The crop yield and time between harvest for organic compared to normal crops it huge. Sure you might not have chemical fertilizer and pesticides but you need a lot more land.
- zeebo, on 02/05/2008, -1/+4What can I say, I haven't seen any of this 'documented lower nutritional value' from an unbiased source, and there's no mechanism that I'm aware of that would cause a plant to somehow have more nutritional value because it got its nitrogen from feces rather than a modern fertalizer.
I should also point out that most of human history sucked when it comes to nutrition and growing enough crops, and we have a few more people than we did back then. - brufleth, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Read the Omnivore's Dilemma. Organic doesn't mean what you think it means. Plus there are people who really do stick to the spirit of organic food production yet they can't get permission to call their food organic. It is all just a means to increase profit margins.
- tannim111, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Personally, I prefer my metallic foods.
- rarson, on 02/05/2008, -2/+5The problem I have with organic food is that it's all about ignoring science. I mean, we've used science to better so many aspects of our lives, then why not food as well? Organic means no genetically-engineered crops... that's just stupid. People in America love to tell other people that they should eat organic... but you know what? Starving people in third-world countries rely on GE crops to survive.
With the world population ever growing, arable land ever decreasing, and weather constantly affecting crop yields, it makes no sense to me that we would not use GE crops to ensure that we don't run out of food. Commodities like wheat and soy will be very expensive in the future when the world's population begins to really outstrip supply, so we're shooting ourselves in the foot by refusing GE crops.
Just another plug for the greatest human being who ever lived: Norman Borlaug. The man has saved over a billion lives through his pioneering of GE crops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug - rarson, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2GE foods are tested more than any other food. You've bought into the fear mongering. I highly doubt you'll read all of this, but it's worth taking a look at least:
http://members.tripod.com/c_rader0/gemod.htm - RyeBrye, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Monsanto is evil - yes - but they really have little to do with this topic.
- spidoman, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Don't know why you're being dug down, it's true.
- RyeBrye, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2sed s/lawyer/marketer/
- linuxrebel, on 02/05/2008, -6/+8Isn't by definition all food organic? since organic refers to something being carbon based. With the exception of a few non-carbon based minerals (such as rion) or perhaps some vitamins. Food is as far as I know all organic. (definitions below from google.) Item 4 is at best subjective as even the concept of synthetic is debatable as most pesticides (not all, most) are actually mass produced natural compounds. Hormones are by definition another area of contention as they are a natural compound given in unnatural quantities. Personally I find the whole concept of "organic" food to be 99% marketing scam and 1% possibility.
# relating or belonging to the class of chemical compounds having a carbon basis; "hydrocarbons are organic compounds"
# of or relating to or derived from living organisms; "organic soil"
# involving or affecting physiology or bodily organs; "an organic disease"
# of or relating to foodstuff grown or raised without synthetic fertilizers or pesticides or hormones; "organic eggs"; "organic vegetables"; "organic chicken"
# simple and healthful and close to nature; "an organic lifestyle"
# constituent(a): constitutional in the structure of something (especially your physical makeup)
# a fertilizer that is derived from animal or vegetable matter - zeebo, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3You might assume that, but you'd be wrong. Wine producers also sometimes use 'biodynamic' farming techniques, which basically means they're trying to use shamanism to improve their product. Neither the organic nor the biodynamic techniques help, but it does let them sell the Wine at a premium, and some wine tasters like audiophiles will mentally link 'more expensive' with 'better tasting'. Its economical, because it allows them to sell less wine for more money.
- RyeBrye, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3Nope. Organic foods spray too - just with chemicals that are derived from nature somehow... Otherwise, your Apple would be a nasty, bruised, worm-filled mess - and the yield would be so low that the farmers would have to charge 10 or 15 times more to make it even considerable.
Although I suppose you could grow your own trees and use nothing on them. You can feel free to allow fungus to grow on your fruit and worms to thrive in them. I wonder how quickly those things will build up in your body? - zeebo, on 02/05/2008, -7/+9Thing is, most of that organic produce comes from the same factory farms that produce the other kind. All organic methods do is reduce yeild, which is great for the corporate types because it lets them sell less product for more money. Not to mention that organic methods require far more of the 'natural' pesticides, herbicides, larvicides, and fungicides than the normal crops require of the modern versions of all of those, because the modern version is far more efficient, not to mention engineered to be safer. Also, unless you're eating wild plants that have never been cultivated they've been hormonally and genetically altered by our tampering. Its not like we're new at that, we've been at it since we started farming. Also last I checked pasteurization was a good thing, and even organic milk gets that treatment, or would you rather drink it bacteria and all?
Organic is a feel good new-age marketing slogan and nothing more. There's no science to back it up, and before you invoke the 'evil corporations' backing the scientists, perhaps you should consider that the Organic food industry is a multi-billion dollar business, who unfortunately have a vested interest in backing this garbage.
Oh, and all the small family farmers that I know of use every method they can to imrpove yield. Which means all the latest advances, since that costs them less in the long run, and brings back more money. - MasterThief117, on 02/05/2008, -5/+7I may be ignorant, but I certainly do not want "organic food." which in itself is a misnomer as all food along with everything biological is organic.
I want my food to be genetically engineered to be resistant to many diseases and to offer the best taste. I want my food to be sprayed with pesticides to kill the bugs that cause disease and ruin many crops yields.
Why should I spend top dollar for food that does not have this treatment? - ClOlD, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3I take it you don't have a degree in chemistry. Most organophosphates are fragile in the wild, and broken down readily.
- ryan83189, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Right before "organic" coke was in the think tank stage too.
- vertigoacid, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Large food growers don't grow for taste, they grow for shelf life and stability.
- katorga, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2"Americans still opt for Big Macs at lunch time." Probably because it is CHEAP more than anything else. Being able to afford to eat probably trumps "good for you".
- PxCxG, on 02/05/2008, -2/+4So let's see...a new test has been developed that can only be used to test for certain types of fraud, but probably won't be used anytime soon since it's too expensive, and anyway, the current standards are trustworthy anyway, so this test isn't needed. Exactly what is science rescuing?
Buried as lame. - rarson, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3By your argument then we should be eating crops genetically-engineered to give us the highest nutritional value possible.
Not that I disagree with this idea, because I think GE crops are awesome, but they're not considered organic.
I'm glad that you admit though that organic crops means making the choice to ignore science and reverting back to the old way of doing things. - fixedcoma, on 02/05/2008, -2/+4"I say Anon should go AFTER MONSANTO NEXT! DOWN WITH MONSANTO!"
- Error601, on 02/05/2008, -4/+6So, the government is supposed to start drug testing our carrots now?
- ClOlD, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Here, enjoy some Placebo Brand Fruits! Our apples' red color is certified 37% more reddish than the competitor's. You can taste the red!
- DrThunder, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2I said time between harvests not time it takes to grow moron. If you are not putting chemical fertilizers in the dirt you can't keep planting on the same land over and over again. You will suck all the nutrients out of the dirt. Organic farmers need to do crop rotation more then a farmer using conventional means. Mass organic farming is what made Iraq a desert, look it up. And ass for your brother last I checked you don't need chemical fertilizers and pesticides for Pigs and Chickens, but I might be wrong. And your little organic garden is not going to feed the world. Taking care of half a dozen plants is not the same as taking care of 100 acres. so NO your the idiot.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is