I may go vegan
- Thread starter dilla
- Start date
^There is this new study in the news recently
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48888214/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.UEipFdZlSq0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48888214/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.UEipFdZlSq0
There's organic restaurants all over Toronto too, it's a huge business that attracts people who want to stay away from the dangers of pesticides and other stuff they do to grow vegetables and fruits...
But as a man who likes to enjoy his foods, I don't eat organic because it tastes bland to me. Farmers and scientists didn't develop pesticides and other farming techniques just to grow more, but to grow better tasting crops so it can be sold. A more resilient plant produces better fruit.
http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/study-fi...lthier-than-non-organic-counterparts-1.942443
But as a man who likes to enjoy his foods, I don't eat organic because it tastes bland to me. Farmers and scientists didn't develop pesticides and other farming techniques just to grow more, but to grow better tasting crops so it can be sold. A more resilient plant produces better fruit.
http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/study-fi...lthier-than-non-organic-counterparts-1.942443
I don't believe that study for a second. I will always pick organic over GM foods and foods that have been grown with chemicals.
Also... I don't know which organic foods you have been eating but they do not taste bland to me, they test a lot better in my opinion. The reason for pesticides wasn't to create better tasting crops, but to give more yield. To be able to feed more people and to be able to make more money. Without pesticides, crops would be a lot smaller and a lot more people wouldn't be able to afford to eat.
I grow my own vegetables and the taste of them is far, far better than anything you can get in the shops. The fresher the better. I don't use any chemicals on mine.
Why don't you believe in it? Do you know of a non-bias study that disproves it?
Try a blind taste test of GM apples and organic apples and see which tastes better, people gravitate towards organic when it's not a blind test because they keep reading/hearing that organic tastes so much better, therefore organic MUST be better.
Pesticides allow for healthier (and therefore, better tasting) crops because the plant doesn't have to deal with stresses that organic plants have to, Growing your vegetables will obviously give you a better result because it's the freshest you can get. A lot of fruits and vegetables are stored and shipped hundreds of miles away.
Try a blind taste test of GM apples and organic apples and see which tastes better, people gravitate towards organic when it's not a blind test because they keep reading/hearing that organic tastes so much better, therefore organic MUST be better.
Pesticides allow for healthier (and therefore, better tasting) crops because the plant doesn't have to deal with stresses that organic plants have to, Growing your vegetables will obviously give you a better result because it's the freshest you can get. A lot of fruits and vegetables are stored and shipped hundreds of miles away.
No offence. But... No.
Pesticides do not "allow for healthier" crops. Organic plants do not have "stresses". These veggies and fruits grew for literally thousands of years without man helping alleviate their "stresses".
I agree with the last line. But the problem is that fruits and Veggies shouldn't stay "fresh" for as long as they do. Which gives them a poorer taste (in my opinion) and definitely not comparable to those I grow myself. Same with bread. If you bake bread yourself it lasts less than half the time a loaf with additives does. Is the bread healthier, better tasting and stress free?
As for studies. I can google any study you put up and find an opposite opinion. Because studies don't prove anything. Science can be subjective depending on how you approach it. That link doesn't tell me anything about the case study at all.
All it says was that nutrition is on a par. Where are the figures? How did they come to that conclusion?
What were the case studies? How did they approach it? Where is the method statement?
It also says there was less exposure to pesticides with organic, but other food was within safe limits. What are these "safe limits"? What are the pesticides? That link brought virtually zero information to the table. Except that a few people believe there is no difference between one apple to another. Or one chicken to another.
I disagree. You are what you eat. I prefer Corn Fed free range chicken to a chicken kept in a barn sharing a small space with 1000s of other chickens. I prefer chicken that is allowed to develop naturally compared to chicken which is fed 24 hours a day and unable to rest.
I prefer my apples with zero pesticides rather than "safe limits" of poisons.
Taste is subjective. But I don't know anyone who prefers the cheaper foods to the organic. and when I have BBQs I always serve my own grown Veggies, and everyone always comments on how good they taste and where did I buy them... !
I really notice the difference in food I purchase myself, and food that is served in the cheaper end of restaurants.
Pesticides do not "allow for healthier" crops. Organic plants do not have "stresses". These veggies and fruits grew for literally thousands of years without man helping alleviate their "stresses".
I agree with the last line. But the problem is that fruits and Veggies shouldn't stay "fresh" for as long as they do. Which gives them a poorer taste (in my opinion) and definitely not comparable to those I grow myself. Same with bread. If you bake bread yourself it lasts less than half the time a loaf with additives does. Is the bread healthier, better tasting and stress free?
As for studies. I can google any study you put up and find an opposite opinion. Because studies don't prove anything. Science can be subjective depending on how you approach it. That link doesn't tell me anything about the case study at all.
All it says was that nutrition is on a par. Where are the figures? How did they come to that conclusion?
What were the case studies? How did they approach it? Where is the method statement?
It also says there was less exposure to pesticides with organic, but other food was within safe limits. What are these "safe limits"? What are the pesticides? That link brought virtually zero information to the table. Except that a few people believe there is no difference between one apple to another. Or one chicken to another.
I disagree. You are what you eat. I prefer Corn Fed free range chicken to a chicken kept in a barn sharing a small space with 1000s of other chickens. I prefer chicken that is allowed to develop naturally compared to chicken which is fed 24 hours a day and unable to rest.
I prefer my apples with zero pesticides rather than "safe limits" of poisons.
Taste is subjective. But I don't know anyone who prefers the cheaper foods to the organic. and when I have BBQs I always serve my own grown Veggies, and everyone always comments on how good they taste and where did I buy them... !
I really notice the difference in food I purchase myself, and food that is served in the cheaper end of restaurants.
I was editing it. Where are your facts? That news link that tells us very little besides nutritional values. http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/195328/175/New-Study-Questions-One-Benefit-of-Organic-Food But... I don't buy Organic food because I think it is more nutritious, I buy it because it contains less poison. The way the study is reported is very misleading.
I don't think a study is ever completely true. So even if I found 100s that back my opinion, it would prove very little.
One day eggs are bad. Next day eggs are good for you. Depends on the study and why it was started in the first place.
I personally prefer to use logic. Small amount of poison Vs No poison. No poison wins for me.
I think we are going to have to agree that we don't agree.
I don't think a study is ever completely true. So even if I found 100s that back my opinion, it would prove very little.
One day eggs are bad. Next day eggs are good for you. Depends on the study and why it was started in the first place.
I personally prefer to use logic. Small amount of poison Vs No poison. No poison wins for me.
I think we are going to have to agree that we don't agree.
I have just read that study again. I believe there is an agenda. It also mentions how you shouldn't buy food from South America as they use more pesticides. The same pesticides that are safe in the levels used in the USA???!!!??
That confuses me. So some pesticide levels are safe and some aren't? The USA levels are safe but Chilean levels aren't? Why would the Chileans need more pesticides than the safe levels? And how thin a line is the safe and unsafe level? Why wouldn't the study state numbers, rather than conjecture?
Here is a link I found by a quick google. I haven't read it, and I don't back it, as it is also conjecture. But you wanted "facts".
http://organic.about.com/od/Organic...ons-Why-Consumers-Should-Buy-Organic-Food.htm
That confuses me. So some pesticide levels are safe and some aren't? The USA levels are safe but Chilean levels aren't? Why would the Chileans need more pesticides than the safe levels? And how thin a line is the safe and unsafe level? Why wouldn't the study state numbers, rather than conjecture?
Here is a link I found by a quick google. I haven't read it, and I don't back it, as it is also conjecture. But you wanted "facts".
http://organic.about.com/od/Organic...ons-Why-Consumers-Should-Buy-Organic-Food.htm
1) Pesticides allow for a plant to grow without bugs munching away at them. A plant with all it's leaves intact will grow faster than a plant with a bunch of holes in it's leaves because it has more surface for light to photosynthesize, allowing more energy to come in to produce bigger crops.
2) Plants have stress, and they've had it for literally MILLIONS of years. Ever put a house plant outside in the winter? How about not watering it? How about watering it too much? How about letting bugs eat it? Allowing too much sun on it? Not enough sun? Those are all stresses. Scientists are trying to make genetically modified crops to be resistant to those things so we use less fertilizer, less pesticides and plants that can cope with the climate change we're experiencing.
Some fruits and vegetables cannot simply be grown and delivered to my local grocery store the next day. We live in a world where if I want an avocado in the middle of a Canadian winter, I can go and pick it up at the grocery store. I have nothing against locally grown food or backyard farmers (my parents grow their own vegetables in their backyard), and it's obviously not comparable to grocery store vegetables, but not every crop can be grown in your backyard.
http://www.foodbase.org.uk//admintools/reportdocuments/497-1-883_organicreviewappendices.pdf
"7.0 CONCLUSION
No evidence of a difference in content of nutrients and other substances between
organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products was detected for the
majority of nutrients assessed in this review suggesting that organically and conventionally
produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content.
The differences detected in content of nutrients and other substances between organically
and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are biologically plausible and
most likely relate to differences in crop or animal management, and soil quality. There is
no good evidence that increased dietary intake of the nutrients identified in this review
which are present in larger amounts in organically than in conventionally produced crops
and livestock products, would be of benefit to individuals consuming a normal varied diet,
and it is therefore unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to
consumer health. "
I can't "Stress" this enough, I have nothing against growing your own food or buying it locally, I have no hidden agenda where I love the fuck out of pesticides (seeing as organic farmers use "organic" pesticides as well), I'm just a fan of simple facts, not dogma. Remember, the organic food industry is a BILLION dollar industry who won't lie down when their sacred cow is slain, because if organic food isn't actually more nutritious, why else are people paying more for organic food other than the "I'm better because poor people can't afford my groceries" attitude?
2) Plants have stress, and they've had it for literally MILLIONS of years. Ever put a house plant outside in the winter? How about not watering it? How about watering it too much? How about letting bugs eat it? Allowing too much sun on it? Not enough sun? Those are all stresses. Scientists are trying to make genetically modified crops to be resistant to those things so we use less fertilizer, less pesticides and plants that can cope with the climate change we're experiencing.
Some fruits and vegetables cannot simply be grown and delivered to my local grocery store the next day. We live in a world where if I want an avocado in the middle of a Canadian winter, I can go and pick it up at the grocery store. I have nothing against locally grown food or backyard farmers (my parents grow their own vegetables in their backyard), and it's obviously not comparable to grocery store vegetables, but not every crop can be grown in your backyard.
http://www.foodbase.org.uk//admintools/reportdocuments/497-1-883_organicreviewappendices.pdf
"7.0 CONCLUSION
No evidence of a difference in content of nutrients and other substances between
organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products was detected for the
majority of nutrients assessed in this review suggesting that organically and conventionally
produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content.
The differences detected in content of nutrients and other substances between organically
and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are biologically plausible and
most likely relate to differences in crop or animal management, and soil quality. There is
no good evidence that increased dietary intake of the nutrients identified in this review
which are present in larger amounts in organically than in conventionally produced crops
and livestock products, would be of benefit to individuals consuming a normal varied diet,
and it is therefore unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to
consumer health. "
I can't "Stress" this enough, I have nothing against growing your own food or buying it locally, I have no hidden agenda where I love the fuck out of pesticides (seeing as organic farmers use "organic" pesticides as well), I'm just a fan of simple facts, not dogma. Remember, the organic food industry is a BILLION dollar industry who won't lie down when their sacred cow is slain, because if organic food isn't actually more nutritious, why else are people paying more for organic food other than the "I'm better because poor people can't afford my groceries" attitude?
So are you content with the knowledge you have now about how the world works? Are you dead set on your beliefs that any study coming out you will dismiss because to you, they all misleading and prove nothing?
In Canada and the US, an organic pesticide was used on organic crops for decades. Being organic is good right? Except that the pesticide was Rotenone and it causes parkinsons and extremely poisonous to fish. Organic pesticides are still poison, the difference is the poison isn't synthetic.
I'm pretty sure this forum has seen this debate many times already. Agree to disagree
In Canada and the US, an organic pesticide was used on organic crops for decades. Being organic is good right? Except that the pesticide was Rotenone and it causes parkinsons and extremely poisonous to fish. Organic pesticides are still poison, the difference is the poison isn't synthetic.
I'm pretty sure this forum has seen this debate many times already. Agree to disagree
Well, they have bitchy girlfriends too, and sometimes they get migraines. They need to be sprayed with aspirin. A glass of wine in their soil would be good for them too.
All this study did was analyze other studies, many of them flawed for various reasons (conflict of interest, dishonest intentions, etc). Organic food is not going to super-charge your health. It's going to hopefully lower your exposure to toxic chemicals. Also, chemicals used in industrial agriculture end up washing into water sources and accumulating in wildlife, causing all kinds of birth defects. Buying organic is also a human-rights issue. The people who work the conventional crops get heavy exposure to these toxins and have many health issues. None of these studies followed people for more than 2 years to see if the organic eaters had lower rates of cancers and other health problems. That's the real issue here. So, basically worthless report.
If grown properly and in good soil they do tend to have more nutrients and taste better. And eggs from grass-fed chicas taste better. Many organic farms have better soil, more microbes. This makes plants more resistant to "stresses," like drought.
Here are some better studies/articles:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100902_organic.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/8000399/Organic-farms-soil.html
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1003185
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.8418
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/...at-and-dairy-operations/#.UDeQhLynEdI.twitter
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201208/stealth-attack
All this study did was analyze other studies, many of them flawed for various reasons (conflict of interest, dishonest intentions, etc). Organic food is not going to super-charge your health. It's going to hopefully lower your exposure to toxic chemicals. Also, chemicals used in industrial agriculture end up washing into water sources and accumulating in wildlife, causing all kinds of birth defects. Buying organic is also a human-rights issue. The people who work the conventional crops get heavy exposure to these toxins and have many health issues. None of these studies followed people for more than 2 years to see if the organic eaters had lower rates of cancers and other health problems. That's the real issue here. So, basically worthless report.
If grown properly and in good soil they do tend to have more nutrients and taste better. And eggs from grass-fed chicas taste better. Many organic farms have better soil, more microbes. This makes plants more resistant to "stresses," like drought.
Here are some better studies/articles:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100902_organic.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/8000399/Organic-farms-soil.html
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1003185
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.8418
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/...at-and-dairy-operations/#.UDeQhLynEdI.twitter
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201208/stealth-attack
Fuck yeah, Winnipeg.
But the thing with organic foods, at least in Canada, is that to be certified organic the veggie/fruit has to have below a certain level of whatever the fuck it is that makes something "not organic"; fruit and veggies that aren't labelled organic have like 1/10 of that amount so they are technically organic by Canadian standards as well. It's all a scam to make money.
But the thing with organic foods, at least in Canada, is that to be certified organic the veggie/fruit has to have below a certain level of whatever the fuck it is that makes something "not organic"; fruit and veggies that aren't labelled organic have like 1/10 of that amount so they are technically organic by Canadian standards as well. It's all a scam to make money.
There you go, conflict of interest and dishonest intentions:
http://naturalsociety.com/stanford-organic-study-big-tobaccos-anti-science-propaganda/
Excerpts:
Co-author of Stanford study that bashed organics found to have deep ties to Big Tobacco's anti-science propaganda
One of the key co-authors of the study, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an "anti-science" propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.
This study was crafted under the influence of known anti-science fraudsters pushing a corporate agenda. Just as Big Tobacco sought to silence the emerging scientific evidence of the dangers of cigarette smoke, the biotech industry today is desperately seeking to silence calls for GMO labeling and honest, chemical-free food.
Olkin worked with Stanford University to develop a "multivariate" statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics (or to confuse people with junk science).
This research ultimately became known as the "Dr. Ingram Olkin multivariate Logistic Risk Function" and it was a key component in Big Tobacco's use of anti-science to attack whistleblowers and attempt to claim cigarettes are perfectly safe.
This research originated at Stanford, where Ingram headed the Department of Statistics, and ultimately supported the quack science front to reject any notion that cigarettes might harm human health. Thanks to efforts of people like Ingram, articles like this one were published: "The Case against Tobacco Is Not Closed: Why Smoking May Not Be Dangerous to Your Health!"
As the evidence clearly shows, Ingram Olkin has a history of collaboration with tobacco industry giants who sought to silence the physicians speaking out regarding the dangers of cigarettes.
Make no mistake: The Stanford organics study is a fraud. Its authors are front-men for the biotech industry which has donated millions of dollars to Stanford. The New York Times and other publications that published articles based on this research got hoaxed by Big Tobacco scientists who are documented, known liars and science fudgers.
http://naturalsociety.com/stanford-organic-study-big-tobaccos-anti-science-propaganda/
Excerpts:
Co-author of Stanford study that bashed organics found to have deep ties to Big Tobacco's anti-science propaganda
One of the key co-authors of the study, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an "anti-science" propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.
This study was crafted under the influence of known anti-science fraudsters pushing a corporate agenda. Just as Big Tobacco sought to silence the emerging scientific evidence of the dangers of cigarette smoke, the biotech industry today is desperately seeking to silence calls for GMO labeling and honest, chemical-free food.
Olkin worked with Stanford University to develop a "multivariate" statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics (or to confuse people with junk science).
This research ultimately became known as the "Dr. Ingram Olkin multivariate Logistic Risk Function" and it was a key component in Big Tobacco's use of anti-science to attack whistleblowers and attempt to claim cigarettes are perfectly safe.
This research originated at Stanford, where Ingram headed the Department of Statistics, and ultimately supported the quack science front to reject any notion that cigarettes might harm human health. Thanks to efforts of people like Ingram, articles like this one were published: "The Case against Tobacco Is Not Closed: Why Smoking May Not Be Dangerous to Your Health!"
As the evidence clearly shows, Ingram Olkin has a history of collaboration with tobacco industry giants who sought to silence the physicians speaking out regarding the dangers of cigarettes.
Make no mistake: The Stanford organics study is a fraud. Its authors are front-men for the biotech industry which has donated millions of dollars to Stanford. The New York Times and other publications that published articles based on this research got hoaxed by Big Tobacco scientists who are documented, known liars and science fudgers.
Right. Don't trust reports from Stanford and other prestigious schools because people donate to them so they're in their pockets. Only trust us, the people who advocate organic foods. So please, buy organic (to support our growing billion dollar business). It won't give you more nutrients, but it'll sure make you more arrogant and morally superior to those poor fucks who can't afford it!
Organic food is no healthier for you than store bought engineered food, but store bought engineered food is worse for you, because while the produce is the same, it has the added bonus of pesticides and chemicals. I dont know if they are bad for you, but I dont want to find out.
I like to support small business anyway so Im cool with the farmers market.
I like to support small business anyway so Im cool with the farmers market.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.