It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There have been many accidents in the past regarding pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc, but we don't use them.
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.
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.
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
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?
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)
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.
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.
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:
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.
edit on 7-9-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)
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
Biological_pest_controledit on 7/9/11 by Freedom_is_Slavery because: (no reason given)
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.