Do you eat organic?

[bicker]

Because it uses the same logic that if your Great Grandmother didn't use it, then there's something likely suspect about it's use.

Such logic would have precluded folks letting their children take the polio vaccine.

My great grandparents generally died young, as perhaps many of your great grandparents did. The idea that great grandparents should be used as some sort of paragon of healthfulness is ludicrous.

Beyond that, my great grandparents walked everywhere, so such logic would as strongly advise you against ever driving a car, or riding in a bus, to go to work, to school, to shopping, etc. My great grandparents never flew in an airplane; never stayed overnight to visit an amusement park; etc. There are so many things that we do today that our great grandparents never did, yet we still do them, despite the fact that we could fabricate some kind of feigned advice from the past in their name.

This leads to the inescapable conclusion that such baseless folksy advisories are nothing short of a cynical attempt to deceive casual listeners/readers into thinking that there is unfounded credibility in what is being advised. (The deception is not necessarily the intention of the folks who repeat such things, but probably played a part in the crafting of the rejoinder by the folks who came up with them in the first place.) Not only are such things deceptive, but also potentially damaging. It leads people to allow their rational thinking be trumped by sentimental derailments. Emotion is a very strong foundation for making decisions about how to feel, what to value, how to interact and treat others. In a complementary manner, our rational mind is the strong foundation for making decisions about what we do, how we do things, what approaches we take to achieve our goals. Each aspect has its place. Allowing one's emotions to trump their logic on all matters, instead of only matters of the heart, is self-destructive.

If we can establish a rational foundation for things -- great. "This causes X% more damage to this body organ, resulting in Y% more premature death than this other thing." That's a rule-of-thumb I can get behind. But my great grandparents, and I suspect yours as well, would more more likely to advice us to think! To not eschew the advancements of society that make life better, and to only eschew aspects that are actually demonstrably no good!

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

No - Not enough evidence that it makes any difference.

Interesting opinion.

However we go organic because I do not want us to ingest more pesticides, antibiotics or hormones than we are already exposed too.

I truly had no idea chicken tasted so great until I had organic.

 

[Lintasare]

If it's cheaper than the non organic equivalent then yes. However I am not going to spend sometimes a dollar or more a pound for apples that don't taste any different than conventionally grown ones. Just not worth it to me and I simply can't afford it.

 

[SAHDad]

I used to work in the produce department of a grocery store, and that pretty much swore me off organic forever. (The first time you open a box of slime molds labelled as "organic grapes", or pick up some organic apples that turn into applesauce in your hands, you start to wonder. When it happens several times a week, those normal apples and grapes start looking a lot better.)

I will buy from farmers markets and the like, though it is not for localism nor organic reasons.

 

[robinb]

I eat both organic and non-organic foods. I am making small incremental changes in what I buy so I get over my sticker shock at the higher prices. For instance, I have started to eat organic or more "natural" chicken (and eggs) with no antibiotics a couple of months ago after hearing on the radio that the regular antibiotic use in food animals may be leading to drug resistant bacteria. I have also started to buy ground meat from the butcher shop where they grind their own meat or I buy prepackaged organic meat. I always buy organic bananas, organic spinach, & organic lettuce. I shop at our local Farmer's Market and I buy most of my produce from the organic providers. Sure, I pay a bit more for it but in the competitive market the organics are really not all the more than the non-organic options.

I still eat beef and pork from the grocery store. I still buy grapes, berries and peppers from the grocery store, but that will probably change after reading about the "Dirty Dozen" here:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/health/the-dirty-dozen-and-clean-15-of-produce/616/

The fruits and vegetables on “The Dirty Dozen” list, when conventionally grown, tested positive for at least 47 different chemicals, with some testing positive for as many as 67. For produce on the “dirty” list, you should definitely go organic — unless you relish the idea of consuming a chemical cocktail. “The Dirty Dozen” list includes:

• celery
• peaches
• strawberries
• apples
• domestic blueberries
• nectarines
• sweet bell peppers
• spinach, kale and collard greens
• cherries
• potatoes
• imported grapes
• lettuce

All the produce on “The Clean 15” bore little to no traces of pesticides, and is safe to consume in non-organic form. This list includes:

• onions
• avocados
• sweet corn
• pineapples
• mango
• sweet peas
• asparagus
• kiwi fruit
• cabbage
• eggplant
• cantaloupe
• watermelon
• grapefruit
• sweet potatoes
• sweet onions

Why are some types of produce more prone to sucking up pesticides than others? Richard Wiles, senior vice president of policy for the Environmental Working Group says, “If you eat something like a pineapple or sweet corn, they have a protection defense because of the outer layer of skin. Not the same for strawberries and berries.”


The President’s Cancer Panel recommends washing conventionally grown produce to remove residues. Wiles adds, “You should do what you can do, but the idea you are going to wash pesticides off is a fantasy. But you should still wash it because you will reduce pesticide exposure.”


Remember, the lists of dirty and clean produce were compiled after the USDA washed the produce using high-power pressure water systems that many of us could only dream of having in our kitchens.


The full list contains 49 types of produce, rated on a scale of least to most pesticide residue. You can check out the full list from on the Environmental Working Group’s website at www.foodnews.org.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

Over the past year we have graduated to an organic & locally-grown food family. We didn't do this because of some belief that the organic produce is nutritionally superior, but for environmental reasons, and, as someone else said, for the stuff that's "not" there.

All of our meat also comes from a local farm, now, which is a completely naturally-fed farm (the animals only eat the diets that nature intended...no force feeding of corn-based feeds).

Why we made this change was a combination of things. We watched Food, Inc. and read a couple of Michael Pollen's books. Then, my dentist was talking to me about organic foods, and what he said made a lot of sense. Basically he said, "If someone put 2 fruits in front of you to serve to your children. One of these fruits have been sprayed with chemicals and other things to make it look better and brighter. The other is in its natural state. They each have equivalent nutritional values. Isn't it a no-brainer which one to serve your child?"

There may not be 100% proof-positive that these chemicals can harm people, but if you don't need them, why run the risk?

 

[luvmy3]

We focus on eating locally-grown food. The pollutants thrown into our environment by transporting food from Whoknowswhere to our grocery is ridiculously destructive. Instead of worrying as much about whether your grandmother will recognize the ingredients, we need to be worried more about whether your children could ride their bicycle to the farm where the food comes from.

So you don't purchase any food (or any other products) that need to be transported?



I don't specifically buy organic, and I do buy some locally grown food when its in season. I also caught one of the owners of a local farm stocking up on watermelons at the grocery store so that he could sell it at his farm, and I'm sure it was for a premium price, so after that I'm a bit skeptical of exactly what it is I'm buying at those local markets.

 

[Geoff_M]

Basically, I stay away from as many of the chemicals and GMO frankenfood as I can.

Seriously? "Frankfoods"? This thread is quickly becoming loaded with the kind of sophistry that Michael Specter talks about in this TED speech: The danger of science denial (he addresses organics / "frankenfoods" at the 12:10 mark). He even addresses that "great grandma" thing.

If it comes from a science experiment as opposed to nature I stay away if possible.

Good heavens! If I were you I'd stay away from anything related to the scientific experiments of this guy!!! I knew there was a reason why I've never liked peas!

 

[luvillians]

Because it uses the same logic that if your Great Grandmother didn't use it, then there's something likely suspect about it's use.

I wasn't saying to stay in the dark ages! I was saying that as for the stuff we put into our bodies I am a little more careful and use common sense. The rule of not eating it if our great grandmother wouldn't recognize it is a broad statement I was using. Again, just another way of saying common sense. My GG wouldn't recognize bok choy but I love and eat it. It is more in reference to the artificial dyes and preservatives that are on the label (which some studies show to have a part in ADD, ADHD, cancer, etc).

Since there is so much stuff put into our food in the name of longer shelf life and eye appeal....I try to steer clear of it. The prepackaged-overly processed foods are one thing I try not to have in my grocery cart. I try to buy local and if it's available I go organic.

Overall, I think common sense and a little research is the key for deciding what is good for each person/family.

 

[bicker]

We focus on eating locally-grown food.

So you don't purchase any food (or any other products) that need to be transported?

That kind of absolutism would be really silly. So, no.... Instead, we "focus on" eating locally-grown food. If we're making eggplant, and the local farm stand is selling their own eggplant, from their own farm, we're going to buy it from there, instead of buying it during our staples-buying trip to the grocery store. And it even goes so far as if we're thinking about buying eggplant, but we see that the local farm just harvested peppers and squash instead, then we change our plans about what we're going to buy/prepare for dinner, to match what we can find locally, and as a result we wouldn't buy the foreign produce, even if it was the only way that specific kind of produce is available. Some things you've got to have, like garlic, because it is in every recipe (at least every recipe we choose to prepare!), but most everything else, it is better to plan meals around what can be found locally, rather than the other way round.

However, it is incumbent on us to visit the farm stand (in our case, the food co-op) first, to purchase as much of our food locally-grown as possible.

I don't specifically buy organic, and I do buy some locally grown food when its in season. I also caught one of the owners of a local farm stocking up on watermelons at the grocery store so that he could sell it at his farm, and I'm sure it was for a premium price, so after that I'm a bit skeptical of exactly what it is I'm buying at those local markets.

The more you know about where your food comes from, the better. I always look for the sign saying where something is from. "Local" is better than "Product of USA" -- even "New Jersey" is better than "Product of USA", because the latter could mean California -- but regardless, "Product of USA" is better than something shipped in from Asia, South America, or Europe, in this regard.

 

[bicker]

I wasn't saying to stay in the dark ages! I was saying that as for the stuff we put into our bodies I am a little more careful and use common sense.

However, your comment could easily be misinterpreted by someone as suggesting something along those lines, and I wouldn't say that a someone interpreting it that way would necessarily be unreasonable, especially given all the heart-felt sentiment that kind of comment naturally evokes.

The rule of not eating it if our great grandmother wouldn't recognize it is a broad statement I was using. Again, just another way of saying common sense.

Generalities are very dangerous. They may make it easier to say things, but it makes it much much harder to understand things accurately. Even the term "common sense" is rife with confusion: It implies that we're talking about something that reasonable people cannot disagree about, so if there is disagreement (and I assure you, there is), asserting that something is "common" sense is effectively the same as categorically attacking all opposing viewpoints as irrational.

The fact is that, with regard to this issue, there is common disagreement, not common sense. My cousin is a nutritionist, lecturer and advocate. He's been talking about his concerns about pesticides and other food industry trends for all of his thirty years in the industry. However, he can rattle off a list of people that he himself recognizes as peers, other experts in the field, people whose perspectives he respects, even though he disagrees with them, 100%. There is no common sense for this issue.

There is some proof for some facts that indicate some things are "gooder" and some things are "badder", but a categorical "If my great grandmother wouldn't recognize it it must be bad" is simply not supportable on the facts.

I really resonate with those two lists that robinb quoted. That kind of thing demonstrates a measured, rational consideration of the issue, reaching a conclusion that is actually "in the middle". If there is one rule-of-thumb I can recommend folks rely on absolutely, it is that the extreme perspectives (for any issue) are almost surely the wrong perspectives. Truth almost always rests somewhere in the middle.

 

[Magpie]

Locally grown - whenever possible, yes.

Organic - no.

Here's why: The rules around who can label their food "organic" are complex and don't always make sense. There are perfectly nice chemical free farms in our immediate vicinity that for whatever reason can't claim to be "organic". It also costs a lot to pay inspectors and as a result the "organic" foods sold here tend to come from a lot further away and cost more.

Of course, half the year it's too cold to grow anything, so I look for local hot house veggies, and if they're not available then I buy something imported. Locally grown food, whether it's grown in a field or a hot house, is usually cheaper.

 

[luvmy3]

That kind of absolutism would be really silly. No, we "focus on" eating locally-grown food. If we're making eggplant, and the local farm stand is selling their own eggplant, from their own farm, we're going to buy it from there, instead of buying it during our staples-buying trip to the grocery store. However, it is incumbent on us to visit the farm stand (in our case, the food co-op) first, to purchase as much of our food locally-grown as possible.

The more you know about where your food comes from, the better. I always look for the sign saying where something is from. "Local" is better than "Product of USA" -- even "New Jersey" is better than "Product of USA", because the latter could mean California -- but regardless, "Product of USA" is better than something shipped in from Asia, South America, or Europe, in this regard.

I wasn't sure, by the way you bolded locally grown, and stated the reasons why, I thought your focus was to only eat things that didnt need to be transported.

I buy local to support my local businesses, I don't do it because I'm worried about the polutants spewed out from the transportation of goods to my local area. I think unless I do that with every single product I consume, its makes no difference and a its a futile attempt to "go green".

 

[bicker]

I wasn't sure, by the way you bolded locally grown, and stated the reasons why, I thought your focus was to only eat things that didnt need to be transported.

I updated my clarification to further clarify things... your original impression was actually closer to what I meant to say than my original clarification was. Here's how it reads now... I think it is finally clear-enough (note the bolded part):

That kind of absolutism would be really silly. So, no.... Instead, we "focus on" eating locally-grown food. If we're making eggplant, and the local farm stand is selling their own eggplant, from their own farm, we're going to buy it from there, instead of buying it during our staples-buying trip to the grocery store. And it even goes so far as if we're thinking about buying eggplant, but we see that the local farm just harvested peppers and squash instead, then we change our plans about what we're going to buy/prepare for dinner, to match what we can find locally, and as a result we wouldn't buy the foreign produce, even if it was the only way that specific kind of produce is available. Some things you've got to have, like garlic, because it is in every recipe (at least every recipe we choose to prepare!), but most everything else, it is better to plan meals around what can be found locally, rather than the other way round.

However, it is incumbent on us to visit the farm stand (in our case, the food co-op) first, to purchase as much of our food locally-grown as possible.

I buy local to support my local businesses,

Not a bad reason at all... that is a good part of why we purchased a share in CSA (Community Support Agriculture).

I don't do it because I'm worried about the polutants spewed out from the transportation of goods to my local area. I think unless I do that with every single product I consume, its makes no difference and a its a futile attempt to "go green".

The reality is that every bit helps.... it's not futile at all.

Think about it from the perspective of those who are very concerned about pesticides... Are they really going to be able to eliminate all pesticide-affected produce from their diet? Some, maybe, but most are just looking to reduce, recognizing that it isn't practical for them to utterly and completely eliminate.

 

[robinb]

Here's why: The rules around who can label their food "organic" are complex and don't always make sense. There are perfectly nice chemical free farms in our immediate vicinity that for whatever reason can't claim to be "organic". It also costs a lot to pay inspectors and as a result the "organic" foods sold here tend to come from a lot further away and cost more.

We have the same problem in the US. Plus, it takes years of organic farming to be eligible to every apply for organic status. It does stand to reason that a field may have chemical/pestilential residue while in transition. Here at our local farmer's market (one of the biggest in the country) the transitional farmers have signs that say "no sprays". I am OK buying from them as well as the certified organic farmers.

 

[Colleen27]

Some things yes, some things no. A lot of our diet is natural but not organic (in other words, grown using organic/traditional methods but not at a certified organic farm - a LOT of the farms in my area fall into that category simply because they lack the economies of scale that make high-chemical-input industrial farming cost effective), but when I'm shopping the grocery store I do make a point of buying organic when it comes to certain things, the "dirty dozen", anything where we eat the skin, leafy greens, etc. And there are some more processed things I buy organic simply because it is the only choice for avoiding other ingredients I don't want to feed my family, like HFCS and food dyes.

I have one child who is sensitive to certain additives to the point where when we cut out food dyes his teacher thought we'd put him on medication for his attention issues, so I am not as skeptical as many are of the emerging science linking all the chemicals we consume to various health issues. I'm also concerned about the safety of some of the things that our govt doesn't see fit to evaluate, like genetically modified foods, and buying organic is one way of limiting our consumption of those things. But it is the C-list approach, after growing as much of our food as is practical and buying from local farmers who use better, more sustainable farming methods.

 

[Colleen27]

No. It's not that I have a problem with organic, I just don't care all that much. My basic feeling is, if it didn't kill me as a kid, I shouldn't worry about it. I certainly never ate organic as a kid, so I don't bother now. Plus, it costs more.

How old are you? How many of these things were even around when you were a kid? I'm a youngish parent (30) and many of the things that I'm most concerned about in conventionally grown crops and non-organic packaged foods were still in the research stage when I was a kid. We didn't grow up on HFCS in everything we ate or on crops genetically engineered to handle blanket spraying with potent herbicides because those technologies hadn't yet gained a solid foothold in the agricultural system.

 

[FireDancer]

Seriously? "Frankfoods"? This thread is quickly becoming loaded with the kind of sophistry that Michael Specter talks about in this TED speech: The danger of science denial (he addresses organics / "frankenfoods" at the 12:10 mark). He even addresses that "great grandma" thing.

Good heavens! If I were you I'd stay away from anything related to the scientific experiments of this guy!!! I knew there was a reason why I've never liked peas!

I personally, don't want to eat food grown with seeds that Monsanto, or anyone else, has modified to be resistant to pesticides or anything else. If plants are cultivated so that their favorable, naturally occurring characteristics are promoted that is one thing. Helping along natural selection and creating whole new species in a lab are two different things.

I'm not against all science, but to say that all science is un-flawed is just as ridiculously absolute as saying that all science is flawed. I also don't think that just because a scientist says something that it is true. There were plenty of scientists and doctors that thought Thalidomide and Vioxx were just great.

Feel free to eat anything you would like, I won't tell you or anyone else what you should eat. I will do the same and expect the same consideration. If I am unnecessarily alarmist then I'll live with that.

 

[Colleen27]

I buy local to support my local businesses, I don't do it because I'm worried about the polutants spewed out from the transportation of goods to my local area. I think unless I do that with every single product I consume, its makes no difference and a its a futile attempt to "go green".

Sure it does. The reasoning you're using is like justifying buying a big screen TV on credit because you had to put a car repair on your charge card, or driving a huge SUV because you can't completely give up your car. Little changes add up, and in the long run little changes by many often matter more than big changes by a few.

 

[bicker]

I'm not against all science, but to say that all science is un-flawed is just as ridiculously absolute as saying that all science is flawed. I also don't think that just because a scientist says something that it is true.

Indeed, but the question here is whether people are better off learning about health from scientists studying health or from their great grandmother, or some other source of old yarns, or from their own personal biases. Scientists have the advantage against all those other sources.

Feel free to eat anything you would like, I won't tell you or anyone else what you should eat. I will do the same and expect the same consideration. If I am unnecessarily alarmist then I'll live with that.

I'm pretty sure that no one here has a problem with you eating what you wish. The unnecessary alarm-ism, however, is a problem, because it may tend to mislead casual readers. While surely there is no prohibition about being unnecessarily alarmist, it is reasonable to expect all unnecessary alarm-ism to be refuted directly. There just is no good reason to give unnecessary alarm-ism an unrebutted soapbox, as far as I can see.