Organic vs Conventional

Just read in this past weekends paper. There is no proof whatsoever that organic food is healthier. In fact sometime when food is not treated the bacteria level in some  is higher then unorganic foods. I always thought it was BS. When I was younger I summered in a camp farm in Jersey Our farrm used pestisides farm next door did not  wind and rain took everything all over.

Look at the sources deep behind the study and you will find Monsanto and the other big GMO seed companies. The study is worthless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chefhow 

I found the part that said Organic produce isnt pesticide free very satisfying personally.  I have said for YEARS that it is 100% impossible to grow foods that are pesticide free. Water tables, wind, birds, bugs...they all carry the pesticides with them from farm to farm.

So if the organic food contains the same quantity of pesticides as the conventional food, what's the point of using pesticides? One should just buy a farm next to a conventional farm and not worry about pesticides at all, they'd save money. 

I say that's BS. Maybe organic have some degree of pesticides (or we should say some organic have some degree of pesticides) but not all, and not the same amount. 

   I think its a mistake to reference an article that doesn't give you the entire view of the study its referencing.  You're relying on the interpretation from the writer, and the integrity of the writer to gain your opinion.  I originally started down this line of thinking when I found out more information about the two main studies that referenced nitrates.  The original article written made reference to problems when infants consumed nitrate rich water, another was when rats consumed large amounts of nitrate through ingestion.  This original article was referenced and referenced throughout a few decades.  Soon, articles were written referencing this original article...which almost gave the illusion that the original article had become the study itself.  After much looking, I had finally found some of the papers from the actual studies.  The original article left out some very key parts to each of the outcomes that they referenced that really would have framed things differently.  

   We should use common sense and grow our own vegetables in the best soil we can provide.  Then, supplement with the most natural means of fertilizer and natural pesticides we can start with.  If we still have problems that are effecting our plant/production...we should escalate only one step, more aggressive, at a time.  Just my thoughts 

Dan

Quote:

Originally Posted by chefhow 

Monsonato, REALLY?  So Stanford University is BS?

I haven't read the article. I was commenting on your post, and your post only. Reading your post again, I realize I was wrong to call BS. I must have read more into it than there really was. I guess this is a topic that's close to my heart... sorry about that chefhow. 

I read the article now. I see that the following statement supports what I was trying to point out: 

And the source behind how good it is is WHOLE FOODS  which makes a fortune on the consumer.

There's another aspect to organic agriculture that everyone seems to skip in most discussions I've seen here: the general impact of pesticides not just on the produce that's being grown, but also on our environment, on soil, on groundwater, on animals, etc.... - and the general pollution pesticides create. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming_and_biodiversity

This is an article that relates to the argument in the UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/04/why-fallen-out-organic-food

In order to treat cattle for forms of hoof disease and some forms of dermititus, Vets conclude and prescribe antibiotics. This in many cases it the only thing that works,( as in domestic cats and dogs) Not to treat in most cases means putting animal down for something that could be cured. This to me is stupid and inhumane. However once treated with the medication the animal is no longer Certified  Organic in nature. Sorry I would rather it not be sick or die and be able to use the cow to feed the worlds hungry then destroy it  for the sake of being able to call it organic who's values have yet to be proven. To me the whole thing is mass hype and BS

Whatever the conclusion of this study is, it will not impact my decision to buy organic vs. conventional.  When I first came to America 25yrs ago the state of nutrition was dire.  Everything was boxed, canned and frozen.  Everyone at school ate white bread sandwiches and chips every day, fast food or buffets for dinner.  Now I see people wanting to try better things, healthier things, Americans are now eating more raw food than ever before.  The desire to buy organic reflects that healthy outlook on food, it reflects the need of individuals to have more control over the things they eat and a desire to learn where their food comes from.  Many of us have made the decision to spend a little more money and get better food.  I have a toddler, I'm not putzing around with conventional milk or eggs or berries.  Ok so truth be told I cannot afford tomatoes from the farmers' market and so I don't buy them.  But the difference in taste is obvious and I don't need a study to tell me that there is no difference.

It is true that pesticides are carried from farm to farm through insects, weather and water.  Even more reason to continue to strive for organic, for the more organic farms there are the less these problems will persist, the less insects will contaminate.  For those of us who live in cities and don't have gardens, organic produce can be a small way for us to connect with something alive and green.  I don't consider conventional food to be poisonous, so I fail to see how organic food can anger someone so much.  I choose not to buy Louboutin shoes, but don't judge me for buying organic onions.

What does conventional mean anyway?  Do you mean tomatoes that have been shipped to the US in February from Chile that have been picked weeks before they are ripe, shipped in loads and then sprayed to make them turn red on the produce stand at WalMart?  Is this what we are fighting to keep?

This chart shows which foods are better to use organic versus non-organic. Although cantaloupe and honeydew are in different columns for some reason. And I would think that broccoli would suck up pesticides like a mop. But who knows? There are certified organic pesticides like rotenone and pyrethrin, but I bought some of those and the label said to wear a mask and gloves while using them.  So much for being healthier.

WillBkool, please list your source.

Sorry here you go, http://www.grinningplanet.com/2006/update-2005-05-24/pesticides-in-food.htm.

I don't know how accurate it is, but a registered dietician showed me this.

,Funny but to my knowledge people in America ar living longer and longer in particular the recent past generations who did not have Organic or Health food.  CHEFHOW  IS ON THE MONEY IN MY OPINION. . I worked in a vegetarian hotel  all the people looked Anebic.Most died in their early 60s.

"The Stanford team combed through thousands of studies to analyze the 237 that most rigorously compared organic and conventional foods. Bravata was dismayed that just 17 compared how people fared eating either diet while the rest investigated properties of the foods themselves."

Studies by who and where? This really makes this suspect.

There is a difference between whether an organic tomato in one plot of land has a different nutritional profile than a conventionally grown one next door (I tend to think time will show it is not) and whether it is healthier to eat a tomato grown organically as opposed to one slathered in pesticide goo to allow it to grow in a place it otherwise wouldn't. As for me, I choose neither.

BTW, food has far less to do with longevity in the US than Health Care, indoor heat and plumbing and potable water.

Here's one source, though not without its own agenda either.

http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary/

Quote:

Originally Posted by chefedb 

,Funny but to my knowledge people in America ar living longer and longer in particular the recent past generations who did not have Organic or Health food.  CHEFHOW  IS ON THE MONEY IN MY OPINION. . I worked in a vegetarian hotel  all the people looked Anebic.Most died in their early 60s.

Living longer - there are many reasons why we live longer now.  Medical advancement, technology, better education, better hygiene, more disease protection and vaccines.  And I surely hope you are not advocating that those who eat conventional food live longer than those who eat organic food.

What exactly does vegetarianism have to do with this discussion?  This is completely off topic.

Enlighten me, what is "Health food?" and in what form do we have it now that we didn't always have it?

The only test I have done was with organic flour and non organic (same protein content), we set up two identical bread machines and used the same recipe.The organic flour produced a loaf that was 10% on average(3 tests) taller. We used fresh yeast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chefedb 

,Funny but to my knowledge people in America ar living longer and longer in particular the recent past generations who did not have Organic or Health food.  CHEFHOW  IS ON THE MONEY IN MY OPINION. . I worked in a vegetarian hotel  all the people looked Anebic.Most died in their early 60s.

Nothing to do with your cooking I hope Chef.

Did not say there were not a multitude of reasons peole areliving longer. In the Vege Hotel they all ate in that era what they called health food,or self grown without anything.. Listen you have your opinions I have mine .If you think it is that good, then you eat it and pay through the nose for it, not me .Show me what medical study in any medical approved community  has proven without a doubt that organics are better. So far I have hit the age of 70 without eating organics, my mom hit 88, my grandfather 90. He smoked cigars, had a drink of brandy every night and ate huge steaks. You could come back with sure if he didn't he could have lived longer, but when it is time it is time and he enjoyed his life.

I'm not defending organic food, I'm just wondering what you consider "health food" and why you give it such a negative connotation.  If you're 70 then you can probably look  back at a childhood without too many processed foods while kids today and adults like myself cannot remember elementary school without chicken nuggets.  In this day and age eating healthy takes real effort and education otherwise you get lost in a sea of sugar, salt and processed foods.  Someone who buys organic food might not be aware of the latest studies the way you are and may not care.  What people really do care about is putting something good and nutritious in their bodies and there's a heck of a lot of worse things one can do than pay a little more for food that makes them feel good about what they eat.

I'm sure I've posted this TED speech before in one of these organic food bashing threads but the state of affairs in the US can be dire, especially when "conventional" food most of the time means cheap production

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixyrCNVVGA

The Organics versus Conventional food controversy has many facets, to wit:

• Nutrition
• Flavor/taste
• Pesticide/Herbicide contamination
• Sustainability

and, of course, quality of live/lifestyle considerations.

If I read correctly, the study in question focused on the differences, or lack thereof, in nutritional levels and, as many have said before, found less than significant differences. The pesticide/herbicide contamination was a concomitant result.

For me to pay a premium price I expect a premium return and, IMHO, the current return resulting from purchasing organic produce/foods does not justify the premium price being demanded. As an Ag Engineer having been involved with both styles of production, I understand that many organic production practices can be more costly and less productive than conventional production.

Other may have a differing viewpoint.

Pete your right.

I once visited a free range supposed chicken farm..There definition of Free range meant instead of  lets say 50 chickens in a 100 sq. ft.pen.  there were 50 chickens in a 120 sq ft pen . It sure don't justify 40 cents more a pound retail.

      Our USDA lets them write free range.if about 10 more sq. feet are  added. per 100 head. In fact our USDA and the buerocracy of all the other agencies involved has cost us all health and money. Anything the government gets involved in gets messed up and out of control.

       A stupid example I foster a load of cats and use a load of  cat litter. I pay $7.15 tax included for a 40 pound bag.  The shelter( county government run,) pays $9..25 for exactly the same thing almost 30% more. It's taxpayers $ not theirs so what the heck.