Do people really think Organic foods are better for you?

Question

There's is NO scientific proof to say organic foods are better. Furthermore, nobody decides whether or not a food can say it is Organic, so any company can just call it that without adhering to some federal standard. Non-organic foods many times are genetically enhanced to last longer, taste better, resist disease, and HAVE MORE NUTRIENTS than they normally do in nature. There are actually studies that say, since 'organic' foods dont use pesticides, that organic foods can be LESS HEALTHY because of the insects that carry diseases that use these organic foods as their breeding grounds. This isn't really a question, I'm just tired of people falling for marketing schemes without ever researching what their spending money on. Please, save your money, science is good for you, don't buy into nonsense. Don't believe me? Google it.

wow, did you guys even read what I was saying? The amount of pesticides used on foods are not bad for you, they're completely fine. Millions of dollars have gone into testing that, or else we wouldnt have been EATING IT FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS. It's not about making it "visually appealling", it's about making it bigger, so you have more to eat. I bet 1000 nobody could "taste" the pesticides on food, you people must be functionally retarded. You're probably the same people who can "taste" the difference between bottled waters. Man, people are ignorant....I've given up on society...

Effects on the human DNA?? Are you kidding me, have you ever even taking a science class......

Yes, propaganda, cause it benefits me SOO MUCH for stupid people to save money. Google it, simple as that, find MEDICAL DOCTORS that'll give their opinions before you give yours.

I work for a software engineering company in the banking industry, you tool. Everybody keeps saying, "for thousands of years people ate organic"...well think of this, why is it that now people are LIVING LONGER THAN EVER BEFORE? People also lived without modern medicine for thousands of years, DOES THAT MEAN IT'S BAD FOR YOU!?! Man I wish I could punch stupid people all day

Me the victim of clever marketing?? When have you EVER seen a commercial touting a food as being non-organic and using that as a selling point? I do see the point that increased exposure to pesticides that farmers and workers receive can't be healthy, but that has nothing to do with the food and it's healthiness to the person eating it. --And dont give me this 'people did just fine' bs, people have always done 'just fine', does that mean we quit trying to improve? OR GO BACKWARDS?! Damn yuppies.

DO THE RESEARCH. http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2003/jun/cheltenham
THERE YOU GO, go a couple of paragraphs down and read the words

" In our view the current scientific evidence does not show that organic food is any safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food.

Nor are we alone in this assessment. For instance, the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) has recently published a comprehensive 128-page review which concludes that there is no difference in terms of food safety and nutrition.

Also, the Swedish National Food Administration’s recent research report finds no nutritional benefits of organic food. "

THATS A SPEECH FROM THE FOODS STANDARDS AGENCY CHAIR IN ENGLAND, WAS A GOOGLE SEARCH REALLY THAT HARD TO DO?!

Here's another link for ya http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/organic.html

READ it, I like it where THE DOCTOR says "In some situations, pesticides even reduce health risks by preventing the growth of harmful organisms, including molds that produce toxic substances [12].
"
WOW, how's that for a slap to the face for you monkeys?

Answer 1

Before all those chemicals were added our grandparents went to the store every day bought fresh produce and meats. They also had a shorter lifespan. but with the FDA and new methods has prevented meat and produce from spoiling. Outbreaks in preventable food borne illness have decreased. Being organic doesn't mean being healthy. Poop is organic, but I wouldn't make a diet of it.

Answer 2

Alex S,
I have to say, some people will do anything to look stupid. So, who do you work for? Chevron? Dupont?
Get a grip. Dubya and his cronies have paid some great spin doctors to claim there's no such thing as global warming. This government has spent countless $$ trying to prove to horrors of marijuana. Think about it, Here, better yet, let me get you a tablespoon or two of Malthion, or perhaps you'd like to have a shot of Round-up! Produce was grown without man-made chemical herbicides and pesticides for years, and people did just fine. During the late 50's through the 60's, there was a real proliferation of usage --- the 70's began to witness the effects of the "farmer's helper" and most have been hidden very carefully from the American public. Facts are there, you just need to check it out.
Certain foods more readily absorb toxins than others, but the bottom line is that these chemicals have been spewed into our air and have damaged a large portion of our precious groundwater...Nitrates, methyl bromide just to name a few -- causing serious health effects. (FYI, the agricultural community I grew up in had 10 cases of cancer in a 4 block radius in the summer of 2002 -- no coal miners, not smokers, but all drank the water, and breathed the air. Increased rates of M.S., Lymphoma and Lou Gherig's Disease are showing up.)
My question to YOU is why would you want to support non-sustainable agriculture? Why would you knowingly contribute to the demise of future generations of all life?
Get thee to your nearest Farmers' Market, or independent organic produce vendor -- the clock is ticking. I believe that it is YOU that has been the victim of clever marketing...

Answer 3

Well, in Germany there are federal standards for organic food and they are very strict. And I don't think thatt any diseases (I'd like to have some examples for these, please) that insects might carry around are worse than pesticides - i've never heard of anyone who got cancer or something from eating organic food but pesticides can cause such diseases. Furthermore I don't find it very appealing to eat somrething that has been genetically manipulated. The effects of such food on the human DNA are still unclear. So if I have the choice between "ordinary" and organic food I go for the latter.

Answer 4

As to the issue of pesticides, it's not merely an issue of whether or not you can taste it in your food. It's a matter of contaminating the soil and polluting the groundwater; these things cause not only the death of the pests in question, but an alteration in the ecosystem that we may not fully have thought out.

The same thing with genetically modified foods. It may seem desirable to insert the genes of another organism in order to make the produce bigger or to resist a particular pest, but it's exceedingly shortsighted. Wiping out a perceived pest puts pressure on an ecosystem in which that "pest" is food for something else. And we human should be smart enough to realize that there are potential long-term consequences when we attempt to play God by redesigning nature.

We grow as much of our own produce as we can, limited by season of course. It's all organic and we lose some to various bug and beetles and such, but what we are able to consume is wholesome, fresh and delicious and I'd like all of my food to be that way, thank you.

Answer 5

Generally, organic foods are made by smaller, localized companies and they tend to put more care into the production of the food as opposed to large corporate giants that don't care if they lose customers. The smaller companies generally have a more unique flavor and are generally handmade which is also appealing to consumers. I personally enjoy foods, organic or not labeled organic, that are manufactured by local, independent companies that care about their customers. The taste is not only better, but if an issue or suggestion arises, THEY LISTEN!

Answer 6

I don't agree. I prefer the taste of organic foods, non-organic tastes like pesticide to me. I also prefer to eat non-GMO's, but they do need to make a law about listing on the packages. I don't want to ingest large amounts of pesticides, preservitives, colorings and such that they spray on fruits and veggies to make them more visually appealing.

Answer 7

To each his own. A true organic food is grown without pesticides. That in itself makes it a better food.

Answer 8

All food was organic for thousands of years, before chemicals were invented. I think it's healthier to eat food which has NOT been sprayed or genetically modified. I'll buy Organic, thanks.

You say this isn't really a question... what is it, then, propaganda? It says on this site, you can't answer your own question....

Answer 9

It's not whether they are better for you, but they definately TASTE better. Organic foods taste better - it's a fact.

Answer 10

food is just the same but organic food when grown doesnt use fertlisers which i believe just a money scheme too .

Answer 11

It's a good thing that I don't "buy into nonsense," otherwise I might have actually believed the false statements that you're trying to spread.

"Better" is a subjective term, be more specific. Yeah, sure, there's plenty of studies in which non-organic foods fare better than organic foods: usually in the categories of "which has more pesticides left on it," "which has the better probability of contaminating the environment with GMOs, and "which contributes more to top-soil erosion," but other than that non-organic crops don't win too many positive categories.

Your second line is completely wrong; you're thinking of the word "natural"--"organic," at least in the United States and England, may not be placed on any label unless that product mets the specifications put into place by the governing body. On top of that, the U.S. regulations were not simply pulled out of a hat, they were decided as a compromise among the various competing groups of organic producers through the help of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.

I understand the reason why you didn't include any sources for the more unbelievable of your claims....there are no sources for it because you've made it up. Non-organic foods (in the United States) like soy and canola ARE genetically modified more often than not, with corn coming in at 45%. However, according the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, NINETY-NINE percent of genetic modifications are not done in order to make the plants "taste better...and have more nutrients" as your invented assertions state, but rather to provide them with insect resistence, or more importantly, pesticide tolerant. That means the farmer no longer has to put any check in place on how much they spray: why worry when it won't kill the crops? Now, they can douse the field with so much as they want, and it ends up not only as residue in the food, but as runoff in local lakes and streams.

The genetically modified crops, then, run the risk of cross-pollinating with local wild plants. What do you think happens when you inject a gene into a crop that allows it to resist insects and herbicides, and then that gene gets passed on other, non-harvestable plants? It means that you now have insect and herbicide resistant plants ON THE OUTSIDE of the farm, that can spread around the country just as easy as rabbits did in Australia (ask an Australian or search for it online). An ecological disaster just so that some primarily corporate farms can make more money? Is that what you support?

Then in the middle of your "enlightenment" you say that organic crops don't use pesticides, when that isn't true. They can't use HERBICIDES of any kind, however, they are allowed to use natural pesticides and those for which there is no doubt of their safety. You didn't research this issue at all. Just for your future reference, they also can't use synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, genetic modification, and irradiation: all of which are free reign for non-organic crops. Heavy-metal laden sewage sludge.

Reasons for eating organic, (I can elaborate by editing the comment, if requested):
1. Health, quote by Michael Pollan, whom I don't agree with on a lot of issues, but he has a good idea here: "The science might still be sketchy, but common sense tells me organic is better food--better, anyway, than the kind grown with organophosphates, with antibiotics and growth hormones, with cadmium and lead and arsenic (the E.P.A. permits the use of toxic waste in fertilizers), with sewage sludge and animal feed made from group-up bits of other animals as well as their own manure."

2. Maintains soil quality by adding in organic matter as opposed to artificial fertilizers that destablize the productivity of the soil over a period of fifty years. (D. Tillman, "The Greening of the Green Revolution." Nature, Vol. 396. (1998) pp.211-2)

3. Preserves biodiversity by not liberally spraying the land with herbicides and pesticides.

4. Reduces pollution from nitrogen run-off--organic farms can't use synthetic nitrogen, unlike conventional farms where it's often loaded up onto the soil where it then runs off into the water and creates noticeable effects, e.g. the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, which in the summer reaches of size larger than New Jersey. 146 of these dead zones currently exist around the world, with the largest (yes, even larger than the one in the Gulf of Mexico) being in the Baltic Sea.

5. Organic farming stores more carbon in the soil, instead of in the atmosphere. (Paul Hepperly, "Organic Farming Sequesters Atmospheric Carbon and Nutrients in Soils," Rodale Institute, strauscom.com/rodale-whitepaper/.)

Now that I've shot down all of your "points," do you have anything else to say?

_____________________________________
EDIT: Looks like you did have more to say through the "Add Details" button. Unfortunately, none of it addressed what I said. You can go off all you want about how it isn't more nutritious, or how the pesticides don't have much of an effect on humans, but that's only a minor issue. The most major ones (cross-pollination and environmental degradation) you won't even come close to touching because you can't. Give it up.

We don't need genetic modification to 'have enough food.' We have plenty of food in the United States. We'd have even more if the land were able to be used for humans instead of overloading the animals with grains they don't want. The United States produces two thirds of genetically engineered products and when you throw in Brazil, Argentina, Canada, China, and South Africa, it's 99%. It's people in developing nations that need food, and, guess what, except for South Africa they aren't using genetically modified crops! You have no argument.

On top of EVERYTHING else I've said, the belief than non-organic farming produces more than an organic farm is completely false. A 22 year study was done (David Pementel et al, "Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons or Organic and Conventional Farming Systems," Bioscience, vol. 55 (2005) pp. 573-582) and the results contradict your pure speculation. "Although the yields from conventional farming were higher in the short-term, over the entire period of the trial, corn and soybean yields were just as high on fields farmed organically." Yeah, a twenty two year study which I sourced for you to look up destroys what you thought. Had they gone even longer, they would have found that the trend continued as conventional farms lose 50 to 65% of their nitrogen and soil carbon around roughly the fiftieth year.