Reply With Quote
Some of us eat organic not because of the nutritient content, but for the fact that no pesticide or chemicals were used which will be harmful to our body in the long run.
New just in: organic food just as good as commercially grown food. See http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...56S3ZJ20090729
tt
Some of us eat organic not because of the nutritient content, but for the fact that no pesticide or chemicals were used which will be harmful to our body in the long run.
I've always found the "Organic" debate very very strange. "NO CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS!" is like saying "WE DON'T FERTILIZE!" because everyone on this forum knows that "organic" fertilizers are chemically the same as "chemical" ones. I guess "organic" is the "all-natural" of the new millenium.
Though the issue of pesticides and genetically modified crop are quite valid. I believe TRUE organic farming needs to take into account the fact that many species we consume are now so genetically messed up that they're nothing like what they used to be. Consider the fact that 50 years ago, spinach had 14x the vitamin content of spinach today(Saw this article on treehugger.com you can just google it I suppose).
Could it be that we simply need to treat plants the way we treat our fauna? The occasional infusion of wild stock might actually do alot to increase their nutritional value.
I believe that this is exactly what the article is arguing against: the pesticides and chemicals don't make the "unorganic" food any less healthy.Originally Posted by RHX
Most of our commercial crops are derived from spontaneous hybrids and mutants. If you sow orange seeds the fruit from those seedlings that grow up into trees would be mostly unpalatable. Same for apples... The wild wheat from the Middle East and wild maize from America is also useless as a food crop (the seeds are very small). All our major food crops are, by default genetically modified or mutants already.
There is NO evidence for GM crops being unhealthy. If they were we would have noticed a steady decline in life expectancy over the last 10 years as GM wheat, maize and rice are now standard around the world. Instead, we see an average 2 year increase in life expectancy per decade for all developed countries.
"Organic food" is a waste of money.
Yes, the pesticides and chemicals don't make the "unorganic" food any less healthy, BUT they sure do make the foods more harmful. Not only did pesticides & chemicals harm our health, but also to the enviroment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide
In organic foods, the use of chemicals & pesticides are greatly restricted. The definition of organic foods from wiki: "Under organic production, the use of conventional non-organic pesticides, insecticides and herbicides is greatly restricted and saved as a last resort."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food
I did not disagree that GMO foods are less nutritious or unhealthy. In fact most foods we eat are GMO foods, thanks to GMO Contamination.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...16250820080312
Which I think is quite sad. Humans are changing things to suit themselves without taking in consideration of the enviroment as a whole. When things go out of control, then they begin to panic and tries to find a solution to an irreversible problem.
Well to be fair, the article is about the nutritional value of food and makes no mention of pesticide use.
At the same time, I've yet to understand what RHX means by "Chemicals".
Anyway, to reiterate my point about selective breeding(inbreeding really) being bad for the nutritional value of plants I dug up some articles.
http://www.findingyourhealth.org/hea...-need-vitamins
and
http://consumerist.com/consumer/nutr...ago-274034.php
So after reading those, the only logical conclusion is that both "organic" and "conventional" styles of farming run into the same problems; Crop that grows rapidly and stores very little nutritional value due to
1) Their genetics
2) Poor fertilization
So I have to agree with Tyrone, "Organic" foods we see in shops are an absolute joke. And on the issue of pesticides, keep in mind that aeroponic and hydroponic farms don't use them. Nor do farms with insect nets. And yet, the first 2 farms cannot be considered "organic" because they don't use soil.
The solution in my opinion is the infusion of wild stock along with proper soil management
I will agree with the latter. The pesticides and chemical fertilizers do, when used improperly, damage the environment. Here in South Africa there is a commercial tomato farm that is changing its farming practices because of the damage the traditional techniques have caused. Regarding human health. I am not convinced. I was always told to wash my fruit and veg before eating it and I'm pretty healthy. As the article argues, there is no human health benefit from organic food.
Getting back to the environment. Take a look at the following organic vs non-organic food prices:
Cucumber 55p vs 33p (thanks Tescos for the data)
Lettuce £1.00 vs 50 p
Tomatoes £0.35p/100g vs 20p/100g
We can go on forever... The bottom line is that organic crops are more expensive to produce because more of the crops are lost due to pests which means more land (at least 1.5x as much!) needs to be cultivated to produce the same yield as with traditional techniques. The more land cultivated means more of the environment is destroyed.
While traditional commercial farming practices are more destructive they are better for the environment in the long term.
Organic free range foods have nutritional benefits due to the addition of space and with "organic" livestock have foods not enhanced by growth steroids they have longer for lean muscle development rather then simply fatty development encased in muscle making it fairly invisible to the naked eye. Muscle is a lot more nutritious then muscle enfused with excess fats.
Organic doesn't require 1.5 times the quantity of land it calls for the set a side of land through the field yes but this "rest" rejuvinates the soil preventing the dust bowl effect. I forget the exact figure but the EU requires farmers to set aside 20% of their land each year for this exact purpose and the EU buys huge quantities of food from its member countries (IIRC 46% of EUs total budget is spent on farming policies and food stockpiling) the EU is food rich so the loss of this land is negligible. The real reason why Organic is more expensive is supply and demand there is low supply and high demand.
Very true. As some one who did research on steroids I can attest to food where steroids were not used would be very much healthier. I will always cut the fat from the meat because the steroids are stored in the fat, not so much in the muscle. I also buy free range eggs when I can simply because they represent better value for money. They have a better nutritional profile and more yolk than white.
I never said that it does require 1.5 times as much land only that it requires more land (and I guessed at least 1.5x as much). In the case of free range chickens 1.5x is a gross under estimate. It is 7.5 square m per 20 chickens for free range and 1 square m/25 chickens for battery... That is 9x more space!Organic doesn't require 1.5 times the quantity of land it calls for the set a side of land through the field yes but this "rest" rejuvinates the soil preventing the dust bowl...
Those tomatoe farmers I referred to will have to allow the land to lay fallow for at least 1 season. This means they have to cultivate another plot of land of the same size. With fertilizers etc... you can use the same land over and over again... Yes, it is essentially sterile of life other than the crops but you can grow crops on it.
I think the extra cost for the chickens is justified. 25 chickens in 1 square m is abominable cruelty!!!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks