Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
MerrySparrow
669 Followers
MerrySparrow
669 Followers
built4kill
90 Followers
built4kill
90 Followers
Charlie Johnson
-19 Followers
Charlie Johnson
-19 Followers
Frank West
574 Followers
Frank West
574 Followers
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
Organic is a myth.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
"Made of carbon is a myth."
you might really consider looking things up before you say them.
kublaikhanJun 23, 2010
You knew what he meant.
bmgibbenJun 23, 2010
Don't be coy. If you are going to be like that, we can say everything is natural. Everything is derived from nature, including us. Therefore anything we make is natural and nothing is synthetic. See how your argument sucks?
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
Sorry, that is an incredibly stupid and baseless thing to say and sooner or later someone needed to call that bulls**t out. Obviously "organic" is not a myth (worst use of that word ever) even if, as in any industry, there is more bulls**t than truth. To say something that ignorant in a public forum is the height of wingnut babble that allows ill-informed people to ruin an entire conversation by spitting out bumper sticker slogans and that should not be allowed to stand. Even if it was supposed to be sarcastic, it is moronic.
I cannot even imagine trying to support that swill, but maybe you two are just high, so carry on...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kublaikhanJun 23, 2010
You know what he meant.
pimpdawgJun 23, 2010
More of a marketing term now. Like "all natural". Example - High Fructose Corn Syrup is made out of corn, so it's "all natural."
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
It really depends on how it is being defined as it has multiple definitions. Just because some corporations use the term to market products does not make it a marketing term. Much like something can actually be "free" meaning costs no money even though it is used by scammers to trick people into paying for things from time to time but it does not make "free" a myth...
regeyaJun 23, 2010
You're saying that growing things in good soil, without aid of chemical fertilizers or pesticides, is a myth.
I'll agree with KublaiKhan that we all know what you meant by "organic," but you might want to look up "myth."
I will agree that organic pesticide is a goofy, whackadoodle concept.
bmgibbenJun 23, 2010
Growing without pesticides in most environments isn't feasible, especially for a for-profit company. Even large substinence crops will need pesticides of some sort.
regeyaJun 23, 2010
[citation needed]
granted, where I live pesticides are a necessity, but I live in bug heaven.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
Not really, regeya, there are some natural pesticides that work very well, like tobacco poison, but being Organic doesnt mean it is safe to eat as it will kill foraging animals or even people in large enough quantities since it is poison. Organic poisons, however, tend to be easier to wash off of foodstuffs and do less damage to the soil then some chemical based poisons, then again, some are far more dangerous.
Remember, both cobra venom and cyanide are both organic and naturally occurring.
regeyaJun 23, 2010
nowingnutlies, I know where you're coming from, as I often cite botulism as being all-natural, but the notion that growing things without pesticides not being feasible...that's what I was taking issue with. How certain are we of that?
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
Pretty certain actually, since after at least thirty thousand years of agriculture our crops and pesticides have made the insects we deal with walking monsters of nature and unfortunately they tend to devastate even larger backyard gardens without poisoning them. I could agree that there should be something better, but yes anyone who plants a large field can tell you that there are very few places that will sustain what we like to eat and not also sustain the insects that we have created.
dburanenJun 23, 2010
WTF is right. They just say organic is bad because you use more but shed little other detail. Just don't use more. This is lame.
merrysparrowJun 23, 2010Submitter
I hope you are right, but:
"...organic pesticides can have higher environmental impacts ... because they HAVE TO be used in large doses..."
If you use less, they might not work at all. Otherwise, why would farmers want to use larger amounts?
Looks like ANY pesticides are harmful to the environment, no matter what you call them.
dstzJun 23, 2010
And if you read the article carefully, you'll see that it wasn't the only difference in favor of conventional pesticides.
bemenakerJun 23, 2010
It's not so simple as that, first you have to use more for it to work. Second this article doesn't talk about some of the other organic pesticides out there that are based on general nerve toxins that kill everything. If they were synthesized they wouldn't be allowed in use, but because they are "organic" they are.
ehudrosJun 23, 2010
I take any research on environmental issues with a grain of salt. Too many interested parties involved, trying to push their ideology.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
exactly.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
magamiakoJun 23, 2010
On a personal note, I don't see anything wrong with pushing an agenda when it's a *good* agenda, i.e. renewable energy sources, recycling, removing toxic chemicals from our products.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
snafflepaffleJun 23, 2010
Who defines what *good* is? You?
keithlolbermannJun 23, 2010
As long as the claims are completely factual and not exaggerated in any way.
mrsteveman1Jun 23, 2010
More importantly, who defines what "is" means? You?
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
Bah, there's no such thing as the environment.
brooks007Jun 23, 2010
I tell my hippie friends that just because something is natural does not mean it’s good for you and just because its manmade does not mean it’s bad for you.
bmgibbenJun 23, 2010
You could say that about anything that matters really. So either you look up the sources and find out if that organization and leading scientists can be trusted to be independent, or you assume all peer-reviewed studies are accurate until disproven.
geekoJun 23, 2010
Penn & Teller did an excellent Bulls**t episode on this last season.
urbanyJun 23, 2010
True (season 7 episode 6).
dvdkingJun 23, 2010
You beat me to the punch. It was a great episode.
janineeeJun 23, 2010
It was pretty good, they had some f**k ups and tend to be slightly Michael Moorish in pushing their view. For example, in that particular episode, a guy picked the organic as tasting better and they told him he picked the non-organic.
For the most part though, pretty much everything they said was right on. There's no scientific proof the stuff is more nutritional. A few studies have suggested higher nutrients but more have said otherwise.
ryanjmsJun 23, 2010
Actually I thought it was crap, much like their fitness episode that concluded you can't change your body type and will always either be skinny or fat.
The idea isn't that organic has more vitamins or something like that, it's that there are fewer pesticides absorbed into the fruit/vegetable, which means it's healthier to eat. As always, it's best to check multiple sources rather than one study of one type of vegetable like this study is doing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food
bmgibbenJun 23, 2010
I've seen every episode, and while I don't have a photographic memory, I'm pretty sure they didn't say anything so black and white about body type. I'm fairly certain they concluded your body type has a LOT to do with HOW and WHERE you gain weight, but anyone can loose weight and get in shape with varying amounts of work and diet change.
ryanjmsJun 23, 2010
Definitely check that one out again. They didn't come up with anything so moderate sounding. It was much more of a defeatist conclusion and didn't really examine the fact that you _could_ A LOT of muscle simply by lifting and eating hard. They said you could only make very minor changes to your body and would basically always be stuck how your genetics say you should look. Which is total BS and I know from experience with friends/brothers.
denominator88Jun 23, 2010
They also pointed out organic pesticides can also be more dangerous than synthetic ones. There are a lot of deadly naturally occurring chemicals out there.
darkphenoxJun 23, 2010
Organic farming lead to the dust-bowl.
zenith251Jun 23, 2010
How do you figure, sports fan?
darkphenoxJun 23, 2010
It was wildly accelerated by lack of crop rotation and other anti-erosion, which thanks to modern fertilizers that are not "organic" and genetically modified plants erosion is becoming less and less of an issue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crazedchemistJun 23, 2010
because organic farmers don't crop rotate
sleestakslayerJun 23, 2010
I think busting the existing grassland sod had more to do with it. When the unusually high precipitation declined drastically, there was no cover to hold the soil. Modern irrigation can help prevent this from happening again, but it wasn't widely available in the 1930's/
hazelloJun 23, 2010
No, over farming with poor soil management + a drought leads to a dust bowl.
Conventional soil farming produces soil depletion. True organic farming does not. You appear to be uninformed.
13point1Jun 23, 2010
Organic farming was practiced by 100% of farmers for most of history.
davidg11Jun 23, 2010
Cocaine is organic.
Heroin is organic.
Snake venom is organic
Lots of things are ORGANIC that aren't great for you.
mrsteveman1Jun 23, 2010
Organic doesn't mean "good for you", lots of things aren't good for you.
Organic is SUPPOSED to mean that i know whats in the food because it isn't contaminated with toxic industrial crap. At least if i know whats in the food i can decide if i should eat it or not, for most normal food that isn't true, and at this point i'm not sure if its true for "organic" food either.
kingmanicJun 23, 2010
In context of food it's just a production method that some people find comforting. Almost every study suggests it's not different in any health related way. Large scale industrial methods have environmental impacts but so does large scale 'organic' production. Arguably it's an even trade off between higher collateral impact but higher yield vs lower collateral impact and lower yield.
propethicJun 23, 2010
"Organic is SUPPOSED to mean that i know whats in the food because it isn't contaminated with toxic industrial crap that isn't listed on the back in the ingredients."
Is this supposed to make me laugh? You can only really be sure that your food is organic AND isn't contaminated by watching it in every step in the process, as well as ensuring no heavy metals or other crap is in the soil it's growing in or comes into contact with itComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidg11Jun 23, 2010
Again, must I explain Coal is an organic rock?....Made by plants.
Do you want your veggies to be laced with coal dust because some organic genius thinks it makes a great pesticide?
100% ORGANIC.
phantomrogueJun 23, 2010
Organic is a buzzword created by Marketing Firms to push product. Armchair Environmentalists eat that s**t up (pun intended).
shutupflandersJun 23, 2010
Other things that are organic...
hemlock
poison ivy
ricin
nightshade
oleander
inactiveuserJun 23, 2010
Coal is not a rock.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
Coal is a readily combustible black or brownish-black sedimentary rock normally occurring in rock strata in layers or veins called coal beds. The harder forms, such as anthracite coal, can be regarded as metamorphic rock because of later exposure to elevated temperature and pressure.
davidg11Jun 23, 2010
Petrified wood is also a rock.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
david11 still doesn't sound like he understand the difference between the scientific term "organic" and the legal term "USDA Certified Organic"
kinggorillaJun 23, 2010
cocaine isn't organic. I'm pretty sure they don't give a f**k when it comes to using pesticides when they're selling to addicts
birrman54Jun 23, 2010
File this under 'Duh' and/or 'Hello?'
calthemyrmidonJun 23, 2010
Locally grown always tastes better than organic. Even if the locally grown food has got some pesticides (which they often don't), you can take comfort in the fact that it was picked fresh instead of shipped thousands of miles from Chile or New Zealand.
evange106Jun 23, 2010
I live in northern Alberta, I can assure you that anything grown within a 100 mile radius is not worth eating (with the exception of meat).
calthemyrmidonJun 23, 2010
Haha, that sucks. Yeah, my comment was pretty heavily biased toward people living in the continental US. You living way up there puts you in the same situation as Americans living in Hawaii.
geneikilluaJun 23, 2010
They have some bad-ass fruit in Hawaii.
dvdkingJun 23, 2010
In numerous blind taste tests, it has shown that most people could not tell a difference or thought that the non-organic foods taste better. Heck even Penn and Teller did a test on their show.
janineeeJun 23, 2010
And lied to a guy in their footage that aired about which one he picked. Pretty dumb that they didn't catch that and edit it out.
ammundsenJun 23, 2010
When they engineer foods for mass production the first thing they promote is durability. Very often taste can be sacrificed in that quest. But more important than taste is nutrition. You can eat a lot of calories and be malnourished. So a more important issue is not subjective taste but objective nutrition.
Personally I've never had a grocery store tomato or strawberry that could compare to homegrown or farmer's market varieties. The foods that are more delicate are worthless from the grocery store whether it is organic or not.
ryanjmsJun 23, 2010
The idea isn't that it tastes better. Never was. If we decided what to eat based on taste tests we'd all be eating McDonalds and be 300lb whales. Organic is supposed to be better for you, which it is. Just check some real information sources like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food instead of Penn and Teller, who are comedians. I like their show usually, but sometimes they are very very wrong. Like their fitness episode which concluded that you if you are fat, you'll always be fat, and if you're skinny, you'll always be skinny. Which is bulls**t and weak minded.
odonthe1stJun 23, 2010
Please site at least one of these "numerous" tests besides the farce that Penn and Teller did.
mattheardJun 24, 2010
Unfortunately, preferring local food to imported food only because of the carbon emissions of importing can be an oversimplification. There are often regions thousands of miles away that are have a significantly lower carbon footprint per pound of meat or produce than local regions because of farming techniques. Buying lamb from New Zealand which is shipped halfway around the world can still have a lower carbon footprint.
"[T]he vast majority of emissions related to producing lamb – 80 per cent, are generated on the farm. In contrast shipping meat all the way [from New Zealand] to Europe accounts for only five per cent of CO2 equivalents. That suggests that the majority of potential greenhouse gas savings are going to come in the form of more efficient farming techniques that, for instance, reduce the amount of methane that sheep belch into the air."
http://sciblogs.co.nz/griffins-gadgets/2010/04/06/our-lamb-carbon-footprint-most-of-it-is-down-on-the-farm/
snafflepaffleJun 23, 2010
I just got back from Guatemala where one of the things I saw was produce being harvested and put into bags labeled 'organic' right beside the busiest highway in the country where trucks spew thick black diesel exhaust day in and day out. Lovely.
Besides which it's well known down there that 'organic' is a scam. The 'organic' farmers use just as much pesticides and fertilizer as everyone else and just fake the paperwork.
inactiveuserJun 23, 2010
Actually not true.
You can test the plants / product and the soils for evidence and get it, toxins do persist.
Organic costs more because of the extra labor involved.
Even after paying extra workers the costs are only 20 to 30 % more than someone who uses Glyphosate @ $120 per hectare and fertilizer @ $140 per hectare.
The farmer using non organics also pollutes your rivers and water supply, damages surrounding biospheres and has to use more water because his soils are full of salts and no biology.
ryanjmsJun 23, 2010
I guess enough of them are actually doing it the right way to make a difference since, to quote wikipedia: "Several studies corroborate this finding [by the USDA] by having found that 25 percent of organic food carries synthetic pesticide residues, in comparison to 77 percent of conventional food."
beatpunchbeefJun 23, 2010
It's only a "scam" because the Bush administration nerfed what "Organic" entails. Reminds me of Regan's attempt to subversively undermine the EPA. God I hate republicans (and dems to an equal extent.) f**king idiots.
Speaking of idiots, there sure are a lot of retarded, mis-informed posts in here.
odonthe1stJun 23, 2010
It's well known that people spewing opinions and making them sound like accepted facts don't have any facts to back up their opinions.
snafflepaffleJun 23, 2010
My dad has lived there for 20 years. He knows the people who fake the paperwork. Fact.
evange106Jun 23, 2010
I would consider any pesticide that breaks down in a timely manner to be "organic."
However, just because it breaks down, doesn't mean what it breaks down to is any better for the environment.
jsch1l7zJun 23, 2010
I love the WTF in the title. It's hilarious because so many people are SO ENTRENCHED in "all man made is terrible" and "all natural is good" that this is actually a shock to someone.
bmgibbenJun 23, 2010
Yep. How does this comparison make sense?:
Beavers are natural; beaver dams are natural.
Humans are natural; human dams are not natural.
Not the best analogy (is it even?), but there are easier ones that make the same point.
oo7evanJun 23, 2010
I tried to kill some ant hills in my lawn with some organic ant killer stuff. The s**t did not work, and I had to use a lot of it with no results. Bought some real Ortho stuff, sprinkled a tiny bit on the hill. DEAD.
dralezeroJun 24, 2010
oh no! you destroyed a part of the environment. oh wait. that was you intention wasn't it. do destroy life in the environment. lol
kingmanicJun 23, 2010
In context of food it's just a production method that some people find comforting. Almost every study suggests it's not different in any health related way. Large scale industrial methods have environmental impacts but so does large scale 'organic' production. Arguably it's an even trade off between higher collateral impact but higher yield vs lower collateral impact and lower yield.
If you want to help; it's a better idea to scale back than to trust that a marketing gimmick is better.
wakkyweedJun 23, 2010
Hippies. They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad.
- Eric Cartman
janineeeJun 23, 2010
Hey! I don't smell.
wakkyweedJun 23, 2010
Well, you're not a real Hippy. You're far too young. You probably shave your armpits too.
janineeeJun 23, 2010
Yes, yes I do. Not because the man told me to, because it's f**king irritating and smelly not to. mostly I just smoke a lot of pot.
janineeeJun 23, 2010
Organic food is not environmentally helpful, in addition to the reasons outlined in the article, it also takes up, and therefore uses up, a lot more land to grow the same amount of food.
ryanjmsJun 23, 2010
Wrong. Look up organic food on wikipedia: "A 2007 study [17] compiling research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems has concluded that
...organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base."
This is because while the yield would be less in comparison to modern conventional methods, the majority of the farming that takes place in developing countries yields much less than modern organic farming. Which means if you brought all the developing countries up to organic standards, it would yield a net surplus in food.
janineeeJun 23, 2010
I shouldn't have to point out the flaw in that logic.
ryanjmsJun 23, 2010
As long as we're pointing out flaws in logic, rather than theoretical environmental problems, you say "it's not environmentally helpful" and then neglect to consider the other 293492004 factors to determine whether something is environmentally helpful or not. Land use is but one factor and certainly not determinative of helpfulness.
janineeeJun 23, 2010
theoretical . . . ? what the hell are you talking about? Farming destroys the land . Bigger farms are needed for organic farms than non-organic. More land is destroyed to produce the same amount of food.
The pesticides used for organic farms (if you read the article we are commenting on) have been shown to often be more harmful to the environment than the ones used on non-organic farms. Partially because they tend to use more of them than they would have to use of the non-organic stuff and just because something is organic does not mean it is less harmful than a non-organic substance. There is no proven nutritional benefit to eating organic food. It costs more money to buy and produce. So, please tell me, what are some of the 293492004 reasons this is environmentally helpful?
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
Nightshade is organic, which is why I consume copious amounts daily.
pimpdawgJun 23, 2010
Corp Por
sleestakslayerJun 23, 2010
I have a semi-organic garden at home. 'Semi' because in addition to compost and manure, I don't mind adding some synthetic fertilizer now and then and I'm not above using glyphosate in some instances. I was defending my use of glyphosate with some hard-core organic gardeners that use herbicide-grade vinegar as a weed killer. I did not need to be convinced of its effectiveness because I know it is concentrated acetic acid which essentially burns the top growth of plants. But it is also very dangerous and can cause burns if it gets on skin or is accidentally inhaled. They didn't want to discuss, or did know if there could be long-term effects to the soil. I wasn't trying to razz them, but it seemed foolish to criticize the use of a product which is known to bind to the soil while spraying a solution without fully understanding the consequences.
webwarlockJun 23, 2010
I've built a small growhouse in my backyard, and set up an aquaponics system. The fish fertilize the vegetables; no chemical or oil based fertilizers of any kind. Since the water isn't being spilled into the ground, it's just being recycled over and over, it uses hardly any water.
So far, I haven't had to use any type of pesticide. I've done a fair bit of reading in the past few years, mostly about back yard gardening, and the organic solutions for aphids that I've come across focus on using lady bugs as predators. Other solutions for various pests that I've heard of include spraying with garlic, cayenne, onion or soap sprays; and tactics include planting a variety of crops, some of which deter pests eg. marigold. I haven't honestly heard reference to other forms of organic pesticides, but acknowledge that larger organic growers may use them. In my system, I want to avoid using anything that might build up in the fish and the plants; it's a recirculating system.
I planted in hydroton; I've heard of people pulling the plant out, swishing it in the water so the insects wash off and are eaten by the fish, and it's easy to push the plant back into the hydroton.
kaysersozeJun 23, 2010
This is really interesting. Thanks for the information. I hadn't really heard much about aquaponic growing, but your description has intrigued me enough to check it out.
joe8packJun 23, 2010
Cyanide is organic, and is produced in peach pits, and many other plants. Cyanide can produce quite a painful death if consumed in sufficient quantities.
Organic describes a type of horticulture that tries to use less toxic pesticides which MAY produce a residue either on the outside or within the product being grown.
Organics arose as a more healthful alternative to commercial produce, due to consumer concerns about rising cancer rates and other health risks. Most pesticides are neurotoxins, which due to the small size of insects can be applied in doses which are deadly to insects but tolerated in humans. Organics attempt to reduce the risk of ingesting these neurotoxins.
Organics are not a panacea, the word has come to mean "benign" in most peoples mind which has made commercial growers want to be able to label their products with this positive meme. There is really no way to know if products labeled organic are indeed organic unless you grow them yourself.
Organic produce in the real world is more marketing than anything else, hell you can probably buy organic bullets by now.
Here's some details on cyanides:
Cyanides are produced by certain bacteria, fungi, and algae and are found in a number of foods and plants. Cyanides are found, although in small amounts, in certain seeds and stones, e.g. those of apple, mango, peach, and bitter almonds.[8] In plants, cyanides are usually bound to sugar molecules in the form of cyanogenic glycosides and defend the plant against herbivores. Cassava roots (also called manioc), an important potato-like food grown in tropical countries (and the base from which tapioca is made), also contain cyanogenic glycosides.[9][10]
The cyanide radical CN· has been identified in interstellar space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyanideComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ishqboliJun 23, 2010
"organic" is nothing more than a marketing ploy to get hippies and health nuts to buy their crap at outrageous prices. perhaps a few pesticides would be good for us, keep our immune systems in check and whatnot. call me crazy but i'm less freaked out about invisible chemicals on my food and more freaked out about biting into a bug.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ryanjmsJun 23, 2010
Yes, you are "less freaked out" because that's how simple people think about things like this. Then when they develop some sort of brain cancer or debilitating disease, they have no idea how they got it and think they just got unlucky. But yes, be more worried about bugs...lol.
webwarlockJun 23, 2010
FYI
Aquaponics is by nature organic, and some studies indicate it can use 1/10 the water and 1/4 the land; plants can be planted much closer together when the nutrients are flowing by the roots.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
Not practical on a very large scale.
webwarlockJun 23, 2010
Aquaponics is quite practical on a large scale. It's being rapidly adopted in Australia by commercial growers out of necessity, due to drought.
ryanjmsJun 23, 2010
It is laughable how many of you are pointing to venom, poison, etc... as examples of organic items and then expect those examples to somehow correlate to organic food. "Hey guys, poop is organic! See, organic is a crock!" LOL.
As always, it's best to check multiple sources rather than draw a conclusion from one study of one type of vegetable like many of you are doing now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food
To quote from wiki: "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods." That's the most important part to take away from organic versus conventional. You are ingesting less pesticides, which means you probably have a reduced risk of developing diseases and cancers. Unless you think pesticides are good for you.
madirtJun 23, 2010
Please list other links to your information as "WIKI" is IMO less then a stellar resource. You keep asking us to check out other sources but only provide a WIKI source. Again, please provide resources other than non professional user created "WIKI's"
ryanjmsJun 23, 2010
And now we see why idiotic articles like this get support...
Wikipedia, while it can be edited by anyone, cites these little things called "facts" and "studies" to back up what it says. You see, unlike the retarded garbage posted by most people with opinions backed up by anecdotal evidence and "facts" they picked up from comedians, wikipedia cites multiple scientific articles and studies.
So no, I don't need to link to other information since it has been handily collected and categorized in this little thing called an online encyclopedia. Now please, start thinking critically, or just stop trying and just listen to the smart people so that we have less garbage being passed off as truthful information.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
It is a fact that we are rapidly stripping the soil of its nutrients. Whether our current standards for "organic" farming are stringent enough to stop that trend is a debate in itself, but conventional farming IS unsustainable for the following reasons:
In lands used for conventional agriculture purposes
1. The soil is held in a constant state of disturbance (meaning only "early succession" species will ever grow on it)
2. Areas are grown in a mono-culture. The lack of the diversity facilitates the spread of disease. Plants in the mono-culture are genetically modified to be identical to reduce costs of processing-- this does away with genetic diversity entirely.
3.) Crops are planted in orderly rows, removing heterogeneity.
4.) Food chain is altered (the pests, grazers, insects are cut out of the picture)
5.) Plowing leads to uniformly mixed soil, leaching, and erosion.
We don't know the long-term benefits of some of these changes; some have clear dangers.
Anyone who laughs off the need to change the status quo as "hippie bulls**t" is being short-sighted and selfish. USDA Organic is a flawed, but positive step. If the government would start paying more attention to ecologists than agricultural lobbyists maybe we could make the term really mean something.
jsch1l7zJun 23, 2010
[[ "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods." That's the most important part to take away from organic versus conventional. You are ingesting less pesticides, which means you probably have a reduced risk of developing diseases and cancers. Unless you think pesticides are good for you.]]
No, it isn't. Fractions and percents are misleading. 1/3 of how much? Does rinsing the food change either one? What is the level needed to induce sickness? If both levels are below the threshold for illness (or both levels statistically cause the SAME level of illness) then it's a misleading stat that results in you paying upwards of 3-8 times as much for the same damn product while potentially ruining the earth, and DEFINITELY subscribing to a growing process that would require the starvation/elimination of some people on earth to have everyone doing it.
You only think "That's the most important part" because it's the one part that supports your side of the argument. It's a loaded stat.
ryanjmsJun 23, 2010
1/3 of how much? It says in the sentence I quoted: 1/3 of conventionally grown foods. Not misleading at all. Rinsing helps, but not for foods which absorb the pesticide into the skin of the produce.
3-8 times the price? Not where I buy. At most it's a 25-50% increase for certain items, for some the price is only marginally higher.
To quote you: "a growing process that would require the starvation/elimination of some people." That is wrong. Read the wiki article I linked and you can see why.
The level of exposure needed to induce sickness is not really relevant to the argument here because you aren't going to get sick from conventional foods the minute after you eat them. The idea is that by being constantly exposed to the pesticide, and accumulation in the body over a long period of time can cause unknown sicknesses, disease, cancer, etc... It's the old "why do we get cancer?" or "why did I get this rare bone disease?" question. Things like this haven't been figured out, but it's worth cutting the risk if you can.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
50 percent higher costs on food is not worth avoiding a generic claim that pesticides cause cancer. When the claim has evidence it might be.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
The scientists you claim to support your organic movement by and large disagree with it. So does their data.
ryanjmsJun 23, 2010
Disagree with what? That's like saying "I disagree with rattlesnakes." What part do you claim that they disagree with?
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
The premises behind the movement are that soluble inorganic fertilizers and synthetic pesticides are bad for human and environmental health. This study and others show this point of view be unsubstantiated.
philodygmnJun 23, 2010
Remineralize.org proves proper soil nutrients deter pests naturally by forming compounds in the plants too complex for pests to digest. There are, in fact, many natural, environmentally friendly pest-control methods such as spraying neem oil, but stories like this one feed everyone's ignorance and eagerness to trash any integrity behind a label they don't agree with personally or don't bother to understand.
ptastyJun 23, 2010
much in the same way that whole foods is really no longer a health food store, certified organic was hijacked and many of its standards were compromised.
odonthe1stJun 23, 2010
Wow, so many idiots attacking a word. It's like someone tried to say we should eat more spinach and these fools find articles where spinach killed someone because all they had to eat was 12.000 cans of spinach for a year. "See! Spinach isn't good for you you dumb vegetarians!"
Anytime there is money to be made people will try and cut corners like getting organic food from China or fudging on a regulation and still trying to sell their stuff as organic. Yep, it's gonna happen. Doesn't mean organic farming has failed it just means it needs to improve. Like non-organic farming, and every other business on earth, it needs to improve.
Organic farming produces food with more nutrients then non-organic. Organic foods have less pesticides used to grow them and less on the actual food when you get it either at the market or when you eat it in your salad at Wendy's. Not that Wendy's would buy organic, just an example.
Non-organic farms are subsidized (govt gives them money) and organic farms don't get that money but still try to compete.
Of course organic costs more, it's a better product. Do you want to start the basketball season wearing "Adidoz" or a good sneaker that fits your foot correctly and won't fall apart after 2 games?
denominator88Jun 23, 2010
Organic farming will never be able to sustain the population of the world. Period.
13point1Jun 23, 2010
It did for the vast majority of the history of the world, you moron.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
Studies have shown the more nutrients thing is a myth. This article directly states that more pesticides are used on organic crops to be effective. Farm subsidies are not given out based on whether a farm is organic or not, they are given out based on what crops the farm grows and the size of the farm. That claim is patently false. The pesticides often railed against are not very toxic to mammals and the doses ingested in food are far too low to be dangerous.
Lots of people think Tylenol is the best minor pain reliever. Top care acetaminophen is the same exact product, only cheaper.
mrfunstuffJun 23, 2010
@sturmgiest
"studies have shown the more nutrients thing is a myth."
& other studies have shown it's not a myth
A recent report by the French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA) concluded that there are nutritional benefits to organic produce, on the basis of data compiled for the French food agency AFSSA. The conclusion opposes that of a UK study published last month.
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/French-study-says-organic-food-is-healthier
Organic farmers generally compost to fertilize their land. Non-Organic farming generally uses a N.P.K[nitrogen(N), phosphorus(P), and potassium(K)] chemical base fertilizer. So it makes sense that organic farming would yield more nutritious food because organic farmers put more diverse minerals back into the soil.
socialstacyJun 23, 2010
'Organic' is just a term used for companies to charge more money for the same damn unorganic produce.
retstmpu43543Jun 23, 2010
the only thing the organic label does it jack up the price.
how about organic prices.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2010
Around here all the drycleaners and nail salons are advertising that they're organic. I guess I'll just start huffing organic solvents because after all, they're organic.
ericthesalmonJun 23, 2010
Organic cotton farmers in Africa have had pesticide-spraying programs cut to avoid contamination that might cause their products to be rejected. Now mosquitos and malaria are resurgent in some areas where they had been beaten back. Organic cotton farming is literally killing children.
gmyoungbloodjrJun 23, 2010
I used to work at a grocery store, my favorite thing about organic fruits and vegetables was once they were in the store they got the same water misting with pesticides that keep fruit fly's away as every other vegetable. Organic is a label that makes everything cost more and taste the same +/- .01% health risk.
gcauthonJun 23, 2010
In other news, water has an even bigger impact because it is required in even larger quantities and has an even larger runoff. It also kills more bugs than the pesticides. Every thunderstorm is like armageddon for those poor ants! Seriously, we need a better way to measure the _harmful_ impact on the environment.
hereticoftruthJun 23, 2010
I sure wouldn't want all organic ricin on my vegetables! But at least organic does rule out GMO foods that contain organic pesticides in every cell of the plant that CANNOT BE WASHED OFF! Sure, a more sensible approach should be done and consumers should not be kept in the dark about how their food is treated. after all, people with a profit motive CANNOT BE TRUSTED! It is not in their short term interest to do so.
khyberkitsuneJun 23, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
towedwartJun 24, 2010
Didn't we already know this?
autobulbJun 24, 2010
I don't really have a stance on organic food but I found this article to be unimpressive. I kept looking for a page 2 because a lot of information seems to be missing. They claim to have tested various synthetic and organic pesticides but only list 1 of the organic pesticides as being less effective and more harmful: the mineral oil. They then go on with the statement: "Ultimately, the organic products were much less effective than the novel and conventional pesticides at killing the aphids and they have a potentially higher environmental impact." Why? Because the one organic solution was more ineffective than the rest? What about the others? Are ALL the organic solutions less effective? If so, that needs to be made more clear.
keithmarlowJun 24, 2010
Anyone for some 100% natural, no artificial flavoring, low fat, low sugar, good for your heart and good for you loo too totally organic green washing?? :-)