It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is organic food a scam?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
This is all I know for a FACT about organic foods in the US.
Organic milk is way too expensive to buy and it tastes AMAZING compared to normal milk. Yeah, milk that tastes amazing.
No idea about anything else about that.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I am sure MONSANTO has a regular task force out there and if you are in the business of pushing chemicals well there are many way to "sell" them. There's a sucker born every day and two to take him. If would rather give a few extra cents to the organic farmers than give MONSANTO permission to take over the food supply. It is a matter of principal and homage to the traditional farmer who was one with the earth.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by adraves
 



There have been many accidents in the past regarding pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc, but we don't use them.


Wow your whole post reads like a "script" of talking points from Monsanto... But that line above takes the cake because it is an outright lie! I watch them crop dust with all those things every year and I am sure many others here will testify to the same things all over the country...



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 

Not all Salmon can be called organic. Farm raised Salmon is not organic. That which is often labeled as organic is known to be from farms(where the lies come in). Those fish contain PCBs, where wild does not reach the levels.
www.ewg.org...
edit on 7-9-2011 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Anyone who thinks they have thwarted the "evil Monsanto" or "TPTB" by buying organic is ignorant. The same kinds of companies have bought out organic start ups and slapped the organic label on them while still imploring mass production techniques. (Albeit on a smaller scale.)


I would agree organics are much better for you if you walked through the woods eating berries and nuts. But these people who are buying organic aren't doing that, they are going to the grocery store... Buying from the same companies that make non-organic.


And who said mass production of food is wrong... There are some negative sides, but how great was it when there were massive famines?
edit on 7-9-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

However, both Canada and the United States are phasing out the use of rotenone for everything except its use as a fish poison. In Canada, for example, rotenone could not be sold for livestock, gardening, or domestic pet use after the end of 2008, and existing stocks can’t be used after the end of 2012.

www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_decisions/rev2008-01/index-eng.php

aussieorganicgardening.com...


Organic food From Wikipedia, Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods that do not involve modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, do not contain genetically modified organisms, and are not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives.[1]

edit on 7/9/11 by Freedom_is_Slavery because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Some organic foods, including fruit, vegetables and milk, may be more nutritious than non-organic produce, according to an investigation by British scientists. Early results from a £12m study showed that organic fruit and vegetables contained up to 40% more antioxidants than non-organic varieties, according to Professor Carlo Leifert at Newcastle University, who leads the EU-funded Quality Low Input Food project. Larger differences were found in milk, with organic varieties containing more than 60% more antioxidants and healthy fatty acids, he said

www.guardian.co.uk...

GM corn, along with other GM products, have been shown to have negative affects on animals. Organic food can't be GM.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by newcovenant


this is not true at all. People are not going for organics because they are more nutritious


I am personally acquainted with many people who go for it because they say its more healthy. I guess they have fallen for false advertising?



Not necessarily. They probably are more healthy than people who eat non-organics overall and you would be hard pressed to pin point why. Although technically synthetics are identical to the original in composition there is something else to be said for effect. You may ingest every chemical and ingredient found a carrot but there will be an enormous difference in effect on the body between that and eating a carrot.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery
 


But, you cannot grow anything without some pesticides, unless you do it in such a small scale with constant attention and wash downs. Very expensive, and the consumer pays for it. On a large scale, it is such and overwhelming job that you could easily go broke. That is reality. A reality that says that major producers who do large scale vegetables and sell them as organic are really not organic to the definition.

My cousin runs a true organic farm up in Prince Edward Island. Absolutely no pesticides and the fertilizer used is completely natural as well. He cultivates virgin pasture and grows on 3 20' by 60' plots. It consumes his day. He sells only to upper class restaurants, as they are the only ones that can afford to pay what he has to make to produce a reasonable profit.

Most farms that say they are organic, are really not. They are growing without pesticides in plots that used to be used for large scale farming and have residual pesticides in the soil that will always be there. They have less work to do because what is already in the soil from years of growing large scale barley, corn, potatoes and soybeans; will be there for years to come. In this case it cannot really be considered "organic". They also rotate fields and re-use the land for large non-organic produce. The law says that that soil such as this cannot be cultivated as organic production for 3 years, but it really depends upon what was grown, since crops like potatoes, corn and tomatoes grown on a large scale, would just get infested without heavy pesticide use.

Organic is tough, and only some very really good farmers have the expertise to grow this way, tollerate the low production, and make money. These are facts that make it too easy for less scrupulous producers to sell "organic" but
it really is not. They sell at the inflated organic rate and the consumer gets ripped off.
edit on 7-9-2011 by charlyv because: required some clarity of terms



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dreamingawake
reply to post by newcovenant
 

Not all Salmon can be called organic. Farm raised Salmon is not organic. That which is often labeled as organic is known to be from farms(where the lies come in). Those fish contain PCBs, where wild does not reach the levels.
www.ewg.org...
edit on 7-9-2011 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



or·gan·icAdjective/ôrˈganik/
1. Of, relating to, or derived from living matter


Farm raised Salmon contains PCBs which is why I don't eat it.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Organic food like everything else...the beauty might be in the eye of the beholder.

But it is not a scam, it is a choice.

I shudder to think of the day ...and it is on the horizon when we will no longer eat any of our food the way nature intended. I'll never have a decent peach again...I already know that.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I corrected that line. We do not use the bad ones anymore. Of course we still use some, and of course there are issues surrounding the practice. The fact is, there is no proof for many of the unsubstantiated claims of organic farmers. They aren't required to do research. It is like vitamins and "supplements". They can boast bold claims on a sugar pill and sell it for $100 a pop.

As for Monsanto-well that is a long story. When I was a freshman bio major in college we were required to learn a lot about them. To do this, the lab was split into two teams. The pros and cons if you will. It was like a mock trial. Well, to do this we needed scientific proof. I was skeptical at the time about Monsanto-it did sound scary. I was very happy to be on the cons side of the argument. So many people are afraid of it after all.

The problem was, the more I researched, the more I found that to actually debate this subject with scientific facts was impossible. Monsanto does a lot of research on these things. People that speak out against them do next to none. Our team lost because there just wasn't enough facts to substantiate nearly all of the wild claims out there.

Later in college we also learned how to do more in-depth research. We learned how to tell a scientific, peer reviewed journal from an opinion. We also learned, check references. Check everything. Double check. We also learned how to write these sort of articles ourselves, and how to better understand them.

People fear change. People fear things they don't understand. People love to buy the best. Those are the traits organic farmers play on. Sadly, it doesn't work like that when it comes to science.

PS~If you want real organic food, grow it yourself. If you have problems growing, most people will will turn to the same chemicals commercial farmers use. Most will also use fertilizer. Do you ever question what is in all that like you do with store bought?
edit on 7-9-2011 by adraves because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
I always laugh when these research reports come out. Can anyone tell me what exactly nutritious means?
It's such a BS term. Totally non-scientific in my opinion. If they measure macronutrients in organic vs non-organic I can bet there is no statistically significant differences, but what about the all important trace minerals, vitamins, and the differences in toxins between the two types? I believe that will show the differences. However, I have no data to back up my belief...yet.
I agree, that the perception of organic as "safer" than non-organic motivates most peoples purchasing decisions.
Also the idea of sustainability, locally grown, and a host of other feel good ideas go into the purchase. How else could you justify paying more?
I believe that the most important considerations are type of pesticides/herbicides used, whether or not it is GMO, but also attention to soil quality, and water quality used on the farm.
Does anyone think about the water they use to irrigate our foods??? We find all sorts of chemicals in our municipal drinking water including pharmaceuticals, what's in the irrigation water???

I'd say, get the freshest produce possible, wash it very well (using filtered water), eat is as soon as possible. If you can afford organic then go for it, just follow the same rules, Fresh, Wash, Eat.

Oh, and while we are worrying about our produce, and our water, what about our air quality? Will the air pollution kill us before the pesticides do? Egads! Why do we even have to worry about these things? Who gave people permission to pollute the land, water and air? They never even asked me how I felt about it... or am I telling them how I feel about it by the products I purchase, the vehicle I get around it, the place I live...Food for thought indeed.

Also, here is a link to the dirty dozen. it comes out every year it seems these days.
Here is one based on 2010 harvest information.
www.thedailygreen.com...

edit on 7-9-2011 by AutomaticSlim because: additional info



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Up to now, industrialized production methods have clearly shown severe limitations such as a worldwide contamination of the food chain and water by persistent pesticide residues, and reduced nutrient and flavor contents through low-cost intensive food production and/or processing. In line with several published literature reviews, the French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA) performed under my coordination an up-to-date exhaustive and critical evaluation of the nutritional and sanitary quality of organic food. This review is based on the AFSSA report issued and recently published studies. The major points are: 1/ organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals (Fe, Mg); and contain more anti-oxidant micronutrients such as phenols and salicylic acid, 2/ organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids, 3/ data on carbohydrate, protein and vitamin levels are insufficiently documented, 4/ 94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues, 5/ organic vegetables contain far less nitrates, about 50% less; and 6/ organic cereals contain overall similar levels of mycotoxins as conventional ones. Thus, organic agricultural systems have already proved able to produce food with high quality standards.
www.springerlink.com...

I read a recent study that came to the conclusion that there where no nutritional benefits to organic? but

A number of comparative studies showed lower nitrate contents and less pesticide residues, but usually higher levels of vitamin C and phenolic compounds in organic plant products, as well as higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid in milk from organically raised animals. However, the variation in outcomes of comparative studies is very high, depending on plant fertilization, ripening stage and plant age at harvest, and weather conditions.

www.sciencedirect.com...
Lots of variation between study's?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Here's what I do: When it comes to fruits and vegetables, it's best to eat them as fresh as possible as they lose power after picking- so local can be better. Plus, if you want to avoid pesticides and GMO. go organic. If it has a skin, you probably don't need to buy organic. The nutrient levels may be the same, but I think the pesticides effect how our bodies can absorb and use nutrients. Besides the possibilities of pesticides causing cancer, some of them have also been linked to weakening the immune system and impacting hormones.
When it comes to beef, lamb, chicken & dairy, the label of organic can mean nothing. What is key here is grass fed, hormone and anti-biotic free. Free range is another label that used to mean something, but now doesn't mean what it used to. Take a taste test- that's what helped me make the change. Although I now eat much less of the above, what I do eat tastes fantastic.
Seafood is getting harder and harder to find that is remotely edible. Wild fish can be toxic from pollution and farmed fish can have lots of problems. I've been getting fish (tilapia) lately from a closed system aquaponics farm. They are inexpensive and delicious. They are raised without hormones, antibiotics or pesticides and their waste feeds a hydroponic garden.
I also sometimes make my food choices based on supporting people and companies I like and respect. I spend less on food than before because I plan my meals, buy in bulk and shop in advance. I eat mostly at home, and prepare most of the meals from scratch. I do have beans & rice with vegetables a few nights a week, and I rarely have dessert or drink anything besides water, coffee, tea & an occassional glass of wine. I make my own bread and pasta.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Aquaponics will revolutionize organic farming. It produces not only organic veggies but organic fish too. It has to be organic or the fish will die.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by boncho
 


Also, Environmental impact is one of the biggest concern with organics:


All poisons used in pesticides are rated on a scale called EIQ, or Environmental Impact Quotient. They are tested for range of toxicity, or what it is they will harm or kill. Let's say the poison doesn't harm people in anything short of beer-chugging amounts; that might merit a 2. If an ounce of the stuff in a stretch of stream kills all the fish; give it a 10. The poisons are tested for how long they stay in the soil, in plants, if they kill bees, if they kill worms, etc.

Here are some interesting EIQs:
Bt (organic)
13.5
Acephate (synthetic)
17.9
Soap (organic)
19.5
Carbaryl (synthetic)
22.6
Malathion (synthetic)
23.2
Rotenone (organic)
33.0
Sabadilla (organic)
35.6

You can see that some organic poisons—and all of these are in use—have a higher Environmental Impact Quotient than some synthetics, notably the synthetic Carbaryl (Sevin), one of the most commonly used synthetic pesticides in the world.
1


edit on 7-9-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)


You actually posted a source for this one, very helpful. Headlice.org I guess has a plethora to say concerning conventional/organic farming and health.


If companies are pushing for profit only, where does that leave your health? As long as they can't get sued they don't care. Irradiating food will prevent food poisoning lawsuits, but do they care about potential chronic exposure that will lead to poor health down the line? Not unless they can be sued for it.

A lot of the food has become so degraded that they really just become little more than components in a lab, cheap components is key. You take that McDonald's beef which comes from 500 cows of all ages and health, bleach it, put preservatives in it, "reflavorize" it so your Big Mac will taste the same everywhere you buy it, 20 other steps, it gets to a point where it becomes more chemical than cow. But that's the idea with food now, doesn't matter what you start with, just add flavoring and MSG to make it sell.

Reminds me of a story in China where a guy was selling cardboard treated with industrial chemicals and MSG, passing it off as pork. With that kind of skill I'm sure some food company over here would be looking to hire.
edit on 7-9-2011 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 


i agree it is very difficult to grow without pesticides but not impossible for instance you could introduce specific predators of insects to combat them without any harm to the produce or yield
you probably are already in the know but for others
Organic_farming_methods
Biological_pest_control
edit on 7/9/11 by Freedom_is_Slavery because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
reply to post by charlyv
 


i agree it is very difficult to grow without pesticides but not impossible for instance you could introduce specific predators of insects to combat them without any harm to the produce or yield
you probably are already in the know but for others
Organic_farming_methods
Biological_pest_control
edit on 7/9/11 by Freedom_is_Slavery because: (no reason given)


We have got to be careful with this. Good suggestion, but many will read introduce insects/predators as anything in the world. They will just read "introduce" and not some warnings in the links. Indigenous species are usually okay, but can still cause a lot of harm.

For the readers:
Most of the foreign insects (Foreign invasive species) that are introduced end up being major issues later. It is a major problem to think otherwise. A foreign insect it more detrimental to the environment that is a pesticide. The foreign insects have no natural predators and lead to chaos. At least chemical can be tested and prevented in the long run.

Then again, I can't even count the times I have heard "whats the worst that could happen?"

edit on 7-9-2011 by adraves because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by adraves
 





The problem was, the more I researched, the more I found that to actually debate this subject with scientific facts was impossible. Monsanto does a lot of research on these things. People that speak out against them do next to none. Our team lost because there just wasn't enough facts to substantiate nearly all of the wild claims out there.

Later in college we also learned how to do more in-depth research. We learned how to tell a scientific, peer reviewed journal from an opinion. We also learned, check references. Check everything. Double check. We also learned how to write these sort of articles ourselves, and how to better understand them.


The problem is you guys are like religionist and the bible. If it is not in orthodox scientific journals it must not be true. I am sure you lost the debate when limited to only approved sources. hardly unbiased don;t you think... In my research I have found that these so called scientific peer reviewed journals are usually just promotion tools for the politically connected. One only need watch the myriad of commercials advertising for people to sign on to lawsuits if they have taken certain drugs that were scientifically peer reviewed to be safe for treating people only to find out they caused all kinds of harm and death etc.

I don't need some politicly correct crony journal to tell me that GMO corn that produces its own round up is not good for me or cattle. The unintended consequences of your type of attitude will haunt future generations....



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join