Do you eat organic?

[bicker]

I agree with this 100%. The whole labeling thing is what bothers me. I just don't understand, if the food industry is convinced that GMO's aren't problematic, than why resist the label?

The reason was very clearly demonstrated earlier in this thread, with all the fear, uncertainty and doubt that some folks attempted to promulgate, most notably, as Geoff so clearly pointed out, with the "frankenfood" remark. There are partisans arrayed (for whatever reason -- often partisans don't even realize that they're being deceived and exploited) against GMO, and so they effectively have unfairly demonized the label. Unfairly demonizing labels is a very common propaganda tactic. It doesn't enlighten, but rather deceives, and therefore is a destructive and indefensible tactic.

It all comes back to the old adage about, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

There are also a load of old adages about the damage that stems from trafficking in fear of the unknown. Neither extreme is justifiable.

Here's a good one: "Sometimes you have to go out on a limb; that's where the fruit is."

 

[Toad_Passenger]

The reason was very clearly demonstrated earlier in this thread, with all the fear, uncertainty and doubt that some folks attempted to promulgate, most notably, as Geoff so clearly pointed out, with the "frankenfood" remark. There are partisans arrayed (for whatever reason -- often partisans don't even realize that they're being deceived and exploited) against GMO, and so they effectively have unfairly demonized the label. Unfairly demonizing labels is a very common propaganda tactic. It doesn't enlighten, but rather deceives, and therefore is a destructive and indefensible tactic.

I completely see your point. Which is why I took it upon myself to seek out the information I needed to avoid foods made with GMO's. But, if it becomes a matter of public health and security, why should people, who may not have the means to seek out pamphlets about non-GMO foods, be the ones who have to become sick? Are these people considered disposable because they weren't "smart" enough to go out and research what they're purchasing?

It's a lot different when talking about something like a car, where purchasing a lemon will put you out a couple thousand bucks. But, if GMO's turn out to be harmful, you're playing with peoples' lives.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I think people are smart enough to understand nutrition. Information is good. Now if the information is revealing or not entirely good and can't be defended, that would lead one to believe something is not right. People tend not to buy things when they know something is not right about a product.

I don't think more information is confusing. I'm not for limiting information. I'm all for clear, truthful information, so I can determine for myself whether I want a product or not.

 

[bicker]

But, if it becomes a matter of public health and security, why should people, who may not have the means to seek out pamphlets about non-GMO foods, be the ones who have to become sick?

What you're pointing out here is something that I point out quite often -- how indefensible it is to unreasonably demonize things without hardcore, unequivocal proof. The root cause of the harm are those who choose to attack GMOs categorically and without adequate foundation.

By the way, ever wonder why a lot of suppliers renamed "prunes" as "dried plums"? "Prunes" came to be known (demonized) as "old people's food", and so they had to come up with a new name to be able to appeal to regular folks. Perhaps it is time to come up with a new name for GMO, one that carries with it a positive connotation, by default, with a proviso that the new label be modified with the word "proven damaging" once such proof is available.

 

[Colleen27]

That's kind of like using the draconian actions of the RIAA to argue that copyrighting works is a bad thing. The anti-GMO crowd doesn't differentiate between good "Frankenfoods" and bad ones. If something is scary and unsafe, then the motives don't matter. What you're really concerned about isn't related to science, but things like politics, ethics, and patent law.

Absolutely. But I really don't think you can pigeonhole the "anti GMO crowd" quite so neatly. In the gardening and sustainability communities, Monsanto's business practices, the environmental effects of glyphosate, the intellectual property issues regarding the patenting of living beings and methods employed to enforce those patents are all very big reasons for anti-GM sentiment. There isn't much evidence one way or another regarding the health issues, but there's a whole lot of evidence about cross-pollination, pesticide run off, and other very concrete reasons to oppose GM crops.

Again, this all presupposes that there's something uniquely hazardous about GM techniques that doesn't apply to "traditional" crossbreeding. Why should "naturally" new crossbred strains not be similarly safety tested?

Because natural cross breeding has centuries of supporting evidence, while what little tinkering mankind has done with genetic engineering thus far has proven to occasionally have unpredictable and uneven results. It is still emerging science and emerging science should always be carefully evaluated from a risk/benefit perspective.

 

[FireDancer]

The whole labeling thing is what bothers me. I just don't understand, if the food industry is convinced that GMO's aren't problematic, than why resist the label? Put the label on there, and let people decide. This shell game they play is only going to hurt them in the long run.

Exactly. Just let people decide what they want to consume. Don't say it is safe and there is no chance of any harm from GMO foods then obfuscate the fact that the food has been modified. More information is better. It is up to the consumer to wade through the available info and choose for themselves. It is not up to anyone else to force a choice.

It really doesn't matter why people decide to eat the food or not. It can be from prior assumption, an informed choice, or an uninformed blind leap. As long as they know what it is they can choose. It beats crossing your fingers and hoping because no one will tell you.

I would rather err on the side of caution and assume they are not safe and be proved wrong later as opposed to the other way around. Lack of proof that GMO is dangerous is not the same as proof it is not.

 

[Colleen27]

We are a long way from that. The organic farmers should disclose the organic methods they are using to control insects and diseases.

Why? Would you also want to see non-organic foods comparably labeled with details about the farming methods?

Usually the call for better labeling relates to what is in the food, not on it. It is simple enough to look into what is permitted under organic standards. There's no way for consumers to know, in the absence of labels from the producers, what ingredients go into a packaged food.

 

[Colleen27]

Exactly. Just let people decide what they want to consume. Don't say it is safe and there is no chance of any harm from GMO foods then obfuscate the fact that the food has been modified. More information is better. It is up to the consumer to wade through the available info and choose for themselves. It is not up to anyone else to force a choice.

The labeling issue isn't quite that clear cut, though, particularly as it relates to corn. There is no practical way within our current infrastructure for handling and transporting commodity crops to effectively segregate GM varieties from conventional; any given shipment of corn received by a food processor likely contains both. And beyond that, corn is a wind-pollinated crop; a conventional crop grown next door to a field of GM corn will be cross-contaminated. Short of extensive testing or an overhaul of our entire system for handling commodity crops to provide for effective segregation, there'd be no way to assure a GM free product.

Over 90% of soy and about 80% of corn grown in the US is genetically modified, so even without a label it is safe to assume any non-organic product containing either of those two crops is likely to contain GMOs.

 

[princessmom29]

I personally think that it has become the hip, PC thing to do and thus the increased popularity. I think there are lots of people out there that see celebrities doing it and jump on the bandwagon. There have always been people out there who have done the research and advocte for it from a health standpoint. I honestly don't think it makes that much difference for personal health in the long run where the apple came from. Obviously, eating whole foods whenever possible is better, but is an organic apple so much different than a non-organic apple that you are endangering your life by eating it? I tend to think not. Eating locally grown produce to in an effort to reduce enviornmental impact is a whole different set of priorities.

 

[SDSorority]

I was having a chatting with two moms-to-be at my OBs office this afternoon and the topic turned to organic food... It became an interesting conversation because the two women I was speaking with had VERY opposing views. None the less, it got me thinking, do you eat organic food? And why or why not?

YES. YES YES YES. Well, I only buy organic what NEEDS to be, like thin skinned fruits and veggies, coffee, chocolate, etc. Things like bananas, oranges, and avocados can be conventional because of the thick skin.

So, why do I eat organic? Oh let me count the ways. I won't get into it, but there is a great movie called 'Food Inc.' that delves into the cattle industry and how factory farms are killing the environment and killing Americans. If you can stomach it, watch it. It really opened our eyes and made me want to go to the farmers market!!

In that same regard, there have been studies about how pesticides on food affect the endocrine system, and have been liked to childhood ADHD and cancer. We spend our money on prevention, and I absolutely believe that food can be our medicine or our poisin. Cut out the chemicals!! Stop eating ding dongs and doritos! That's not food! An apple is almost food- an ORGANIC apple really IS food- whole, fresh, and as nature intended. hippie

I don't spend my money lavishly EXCEPT for food. We shop at goodwill, I cut DH's hair, I do my own manicures... but food is one place I will NOT skimp.

(steps off soapbox)

I talk a little more about eco-living on my blog, http://www.anniessimplelife.blogspot.com, and actually talk about Food Inc. as well.

 

[princessmom29]

YES. YES YES YES. Well, I only buy organic what NEEDS to be, like thin skinned fruits and veggies, coffee, chocolate, etc. Things like bananas, oranges, and avocados can be conventional because of the thick skin.

So, why do I eat organic? Oh let me count the ways. I won't get into it, but there is a great movie called 'Food Inc.' that delves into the cattle industry and how factory farms are killing the environment and killing Americans. If you can stomach it, watch it. It really opened our eyes and made me want to go to the farmers market!!

In that same regard, there have been studies about how pesticides on food affect the endocrine system, and have been liked to childhood ADHD and cancer. We spend our money on prevention, and I absolutely believe that food can be our medicine or our poisin. Cut out the chemicals!! Stop eating ding dongs and doritos! That's not food! An apple is almost food- an ORGANIC apple really IS food- whole, fresh, and as nature intended. hippie

I don't spend my money lavishly EXCEPT for food. We shop at goodwill, I cut DH's hair, I do my own manicures... but food is one place I will NOT skimp.

(steps off soapbox)

I talk a little more about eco-living on my blog, http://www.anniessimplelife.blogspot.com, and actually talk about Food Inc. as well.

FYI- food inc was made by a lobbying group and is DEFINITELY NOT a objective source of information.

 

[LaurenLC]

And this is pretty much how the conversation at the doctor's office went too.

 

[OceanAnnie]

And this is pretty much how the conversation at the doctor's office went too.

I think a healthy dose of skepticism all around goes a long way. I don't buy into things easily. I do read a lot. I take components of what I agree with and work within what I think is reasonable.

For example, I like the idea of buying "cleaner" fruits and veggies. Easy to do.

 

[FireDancer]

And this is pretty much how the conversation at the doctor's office went too.

It is one of those issues that has strong opinions on either side. Like vaccination, breast feeding, spanking, and a myriad of other topics there is nothing wrong with discussion or even debate as long as no one tries to say their way is the right way and everyone else is wrong.

 

[TheZue]

The labeling issue isn't quite that clear cut, though, particularly as it relates to corn. There is no practical way within our current infrastructure for handling and transporting commodity crops to effectively segregate GM varieties from conventional; any given shipment of corn received by a food processor likely contains both. And beyond that, corn is a wind-pollinated crop; a conventional crop grown next door to a field of GM corn will be cross-contaminated. Short of extensive testing or an overhaul of our entire system for handling commodity crops to provide for effective segregation, there'd be no way to assure a GM free product.

Over 90% of soy and about 80% of corn grown in the US is genetically modified, so even without a label it is safe to assume any non-organic product containing either of those two crops is likely to contain GMOs.

This bolded part is my problem with GM foods. One of the big problems with the africanized honey bees is they couldn't contain it since they bred outside of human control; plants do too. There is no way to contain the pollen in a field. I think there is something wrong with changing an organism's DNA then setting it out into the world with no control on how that DNA will spread.

I buy some organic, but it's generally to get processed foods that have less really processed ingredients in them. I would love to switch over to organic meat and milk just because of the antibiotics and hormones in the meat right now...I'm more concerned about that than the pesticides. The risks of genetically modified foods are at the bottom of the list; and really I just assume anything with corn in it is genetically modified and corn is in everything...it's hard enough trying to get rid of corn syrup let alone all things corn.

 

[LaurenLC]

It is one of those issues that has strong opinions on either side. Like vaccination, breast feeding, spanking, and a myriad of other topics there is nothing wrong with discussion or even debate as long as no one tries to say their way is the right way and everyone else is wrong.

I never said anything was wrong with it; I was just making an observation.

 

[OceanAnnie]

It is one of those issues that has strong opinions on either side. Like vaccination, breast feeding, spanking, and a myriad of other topics there is nothing wrong with discussion or even debate as long as no one tries to say their way is the right way and everyone else is wrong.

Exactly.

What works for one, might not work for another. And that is A-okay.

 

[monkeybug]

I spent a good part of my morning looking into CSA's, not necessarily out of a desire to eat more organic foods, but more that I like the idea of supporting local farms, and getting food fresh from the field, the fact that most of the farms grow with organically (though are not necessarily certified) is just a bonus. It will cost me a bit more, but cooking from scratch is my hobby, so I'm OK with that. We plan on purchasing shares at a farm that has the option to add meats and eggs as well.
As for the great grandparents thing, both sets of my great grand parents lived well into their 90's, and all of my grandparents (and their siblings) are alive today as well. They were farmers and ate what the grew and butchered. I admit that their longevity could have nothing to do with their diet or lifestyle, but it sure didn't seem to hurt! I would have to agree that the reason that I side with my grandmas old fashioned logic is largely emotional, but a lot of it has proven itself quite logical as well. I remember my mom going against the grain and with grandma, and sticking with real butter when everyone else was buying tubs of margarine. It seemed like such an unhealthy thing to do at the time, now I'm thankful for years of not having trans fats slathered on my cinnamon toast!
I agree that sticking with old fashioned sentiments is not a wise choice where many things are concerned, but when it comes to diet and exercise, it seems that despite all the trends, fads, and research, what we keep coming back to is that minimally processed foods, a variety of them, and some hard work eveyrday is what works best. Just like Grandma has said all along.

 

[Colleen27]

I agree that sticking with old fashioned sentiments is not a wise choice where many things are concerned, but when it comes to diet and exercise, it seems that despite all the trends, fads, and research, what we keep coming back to is that minimally processed foods, a variety of them, and some hard work eveyrday is what works best. Just like Grandma has said all along.

I think we've done ourselves a huge disservice by so readily dismissing folk wisdom in favor of science. Science isn't infallible and is just as prone to trends and biased thinking as any other human endeavor. How many of the things we've been told over the last 20 years or so have now been discounted, reversed, or amended beyond recognition? And not just in matters of nutrition but also in other spheres where handed down wisdom has been supplanted by expert advice - housekeeping, parenting, evironment, etc. Which isn't to say I advocate ignoring scientific evidence altogether, but many times science isn't really looking at real-world conditions, is operating from biased/untrue assumptions, or is so intent on figuring out a small piece of how our world works that no one steps back to put the advice in big-picture perspective.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Why? Would you also want to see non-organic foods comparably labeled with details about the farming methods?

Usually the call for better labeling relates to what is in the food, not on it. It is simple enough to look into what is permitted under organic standards. There's no way for consumers to know, in the absence of labels from the producers, what ingredients go into a packaged food.

Absolutely.

"Organic" makes itself appear as a healthy alternative to regular when in reality there may not be much difference between some produce.

You might have a BIG CORPORATION using the same chemicals on the same produce however since they are not eliglible for an organic farmer permit they can't label it that way. Who knows?

Because we are in the dark about the methods used to control diseases and insects it has become a big business.

So if someone is going to base their selling point as being "organic", reveal your organic controls with regards to diseases and insects.