Do you eat organic?

[FireDancer]

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.

I get my information from a variety of sources. Some are scientists, some nutritionists, some is my own deduction or belief, and some life experience. As for scientists having advantages over all other sources, that isn't always true. They have their own biases which aren't always ignored. They have their own agenda which can be furthered by favorable outcomes in studies. There are also often conflicts that come from funding sources. If company A is funding a study and a particular outcome is more favorable to company A it might be in the researchers interest to make sure the favorable outcome happens. Scientists are still people and people aren't perfect.

Just as I don't allow a post on a message board to form my health choices I would suggest others do not allow my posts or anyone else's to unilaterally form theirs.

 

[DznyFan]

Organic sometimes, local mainly. We have fantastic farmers markets in our area, and local buying co-ops. When I buy locally I can:
Get to know my farmer(s) and food producers personally.
I don't have to worry about:
What my meat producing animal is being fed (GRASS, like nature intended!),
what the animal's living conditions are like,
what's being injected into the animals that are producing my meat, dairy and eggs,
if the lettuce I'm eating is being irrigated by runoff water from mass feedlots or dairies and full of bad bacteria,
if my tomato has been genetically engineered to have a shelf life of 12 months or was irradiated,
if my fish is from China,
if the egg I'm eating is from a hen that sat on top of another hen's rotting carcass for two weeks.
if the burger I'm eating has filler in it that was treated with ammonia to help kill the ecoli that is most likely in the burger.
I know that the nutritional content of the food I'm eating is the best it can be because it hasn't been processed to death.

Personally, I'm not particularly a "greenie". I don't fall under the normal personal demographic of the organic industry's marketing. I love animals but I'm not a huge animal rights advocate. I did grow up on a farm. I am however, with the frightening changes in the food industry over the past 40 years (mostly the past 10 - 20 and less), much more concerned about what's going into my body and how it was produced.

"we didn't eat organic when we were kids and we turned out ok". Yep, mostly true. We didn't eat organic because it wasn't around. We didn't NEED to have organic, or even farmer's markets (although we did, in the form of local fruit and produce stands) back then. We didn't have a government subsidizing the food industry by paying farmers to produce a single grain that allows the mass, cheap feeding of animals, thusly allowing the mass cheap production of low quality meat (including what our dogs eat, even - when was the last time you saw a wild dog hunting an ear of corn, eh?? You know that's what dog food is made of - corn, not meat, as we're led to believe). We didn't have to eat like we do now.

Price? I've found the cheese is slightly higher, the meat is higher sometimes, and the produce is about the same price through the farmers market or co-op as I pay at the grocery store. And I'm not 100% convinced organic companies aren't operating along some of the poor principals - after all, they're mainly owned by the big food companies. If I had a small child in the house now, she'd be eating very differently than she did when she was small. She'd be eating clean food, without question.

I'll step off my soapbox now.... but yes, I do eat clean, and that's why.

 

[bettymae1121]

I do my best to eat as much organic and whole foods (as in not processed, i don't mean the store chain) as possible, though of course it's not 100%. I actually find that with careful shoping I don't spend that much more than I did before making the switch, plus I find the overall quality to be much, much better than non-organic sources. A friend of mine who thinks organic is "just silly" even mentioned that a container of organic lettuce blend that she was forced to buy when the non-organic was sold out, lasted MUCH longer in the fridge than the non-organic that she was used to buying. Because she didn't have to toss the rotten remains after a few days, the organic actually worked out to be cheaper. My husband, who is also "meh" about my organic/whole foods kick also noted that the organic foods I buy taste better and that overall quality is better.

So yes, I do pay a bit more but I also get better quality for the money. On that basis alone I feel the extra cost is justified. That the foods I eat aren't raised/grown with pesticides, antiboiotics, hormones, or genetically enginered is a bonus.

My next step is to buy more locally. I have a fruit/veggie stand just down the road, and I have a lead on a full fledged farmers market near me that is open on weekends (for some weird reason, many of the ones around me only operate one day a week, and it's usually a week day when most people are working, including myself).

Also, for the last few years I've grown some things on my own, mainly tomatos and bell peppers. I'd love a huge garden, but due to a huge tree that shades my whole back yard, I'm limited to just the side of my home.

 

[Geoff_M]

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.

If you can explain why the specific modification of selected genes is inherently more problematic than haphazard traditional crossbreeding, then your view might make sense. But it was the latter "natural" way that gave us things like the Africanized Honey Bee.

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.

See Specter 5:10-6:14.

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.

That's fine, but the problem with espousing such alarm-ism of "Frankenfoods" is that it can impact more than just you... as witnessed by all of the efforts to block the "golden rice" (GM rice fortified with vitamin A) project from helping the developing world. Such groupthink this is a facet of the "high-tech colonialism" that Specter speaks of.

 

[Christine]

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.

Going off track a bit here but HFCS made a major debut into the food supply in the early to mid 70s. It entered and the switchover was VERY fast. At age 30, you most certainly did grow up with HFCS in everything unless your parents controlled your intake of processed foods. Most people weren't aware of what was going on and didn't do that. At 46, HFCS didn't hit my life until I was a teen so I don't think I suffer the ramifications that a young child did. I think we are starting to see that now in the increased obesity and diabetes surges.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

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.

HA, ha...that is the ticket. "Organic" does not mean "pesticide free". It means they use organic pesticides, which is better than inorganic pesticides.

I wonder what "no sprays" equals too.....It may mean that the produce has "no sprays" after flowering or a myriad of other definitions.

Most of the time the "organic farmer" is using an organic pesticide prior to produce production.

Just tossing that out there. I think people think that organic means no pesticides and that is just not true.

 

[FireDancer]

If you can explain why the specific modification of selected genes is inherently more problematic than haphazard traditional crossbreeding, then your view might make sense. But it was the latter "natural" way that gave us things like the Africanized Honey Bee.

That's fine, but the problem with espousing such alarm-ism of "Frankenfoods" is that it can impact more than just you... as witnessed by all of the efforts to block the "golden rice" (GM rice fortified with vitamin A) project from helping the developing world. Such groupthink this is a facet of the "high-tech colonialism" that Specter speaks of.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not interested in a philosophical debate about what I want to put into my body. I merely gave my opinion. Ultimately, as long as we:
A) are free to decide for ourselves what we eat or what medicines we take and
B) have properly labeled food with full disclosure of what is in it
I am not concerned with what choice anyone other then me makes, as long as it is a chioce.

 

[Mrs. Charming]

I wish. I really do. Food is too expensive, if we ate all organic, we would starve! We're also in a really high cost-of-living area, and we're not on the high end of salaries by a long shot.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not interested in a philosophical debate about what I want to put into my body. I merely gave my opinion. Ultimately, as long as we:
A) are free to decide for ourselves what we eat or what medicines we take and
B) have properly labeled food with full disclosure of what is in it
I am not concerned with what choice anyone other then me makes, as long as it is a chioce.

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

 

[Toad_Passenger]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not interested in a philosophical debate about what I want to put into my body. I merely gave my opinion. Ultimately, as long as we:
A) are free to decide for ourselves what we eat or what medicines we take and
B) have properly labeled food with full disclosure of what is in it
I am not concerned with what choice anyone other then me makes, as long as it is a chioce.

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? Put the label on there, and let people decide. This shell game they play is only going to hurt them in the long run.

I'm also sick of the "we feed the world" rhetoric. Instead of using the GMO's to feed the world, why not send your company crop specialists to the areas that are stricken with famine and teach them to farm. Help put irrigation systems into place. Make an actual difference, rather than figuring out a lazy way to chemically alter the food. Not only will it help feed the hungry, but it could go a long way into helping the overall quality of life in these countries.

What will happen if, say in 20 years, these GMO's turn out to be a hazard. Everyone will look at the US companies, like Monsanto, and say, "you did something terrible to all of these people, how are you going to fix it?" Look at all the scrambling BP is having to do in the Gulf of Mexico.

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

 

[robinb]

I wonder what "no sprays" equals too.....It may mean that the produce has "no sprays" after flowering or a myriad of other definitions.

I'll admit that I actually have no clue what "no sprays" means exactly . I will still buy from those farmers over the ones who don't say anything.

 

[Colleen27]

If you can explain why the specific modification of selected genes is inherently more problematic than haphazard traditional crossbreeding, then your view might make sense. But it was the latter "natural" way that gave us things like the Africanized Honey Bee.

My primary issue is the reasoning behind the genetic modification of crops in the US - to allow for more widespread use of a herbicide that damages ecosystems. Golden rice and more benevolent applications of the technology have little to do with the issue in the US. Here, GM crops are planted to allow indiscriminate spraying of fields with a toxic substance, plain and simple. It is the very model of externalized costs; Monsanto makes a tidy profit and the rest of us are left to cope with the environmental fallout.

I also take issue with the fact that we haven't been given the opportunity to know if there are/will be heath consequences from the GM foods themselves. There's been little to no independent investigation, no long-term studies, and a lot of political and financial pressure to impede any real investigation. But that's really secondary to the environmental effects in my mind; this isn't a case of something like coal-fired power plants that have a direct benefit to the public as a whole that could perhaps be used to argue a "necessary evil" position regarding the environmental effects. It is a questionable product created solely to sell more of another questionable if not downright detrimental product.

 

[luvmy3]

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.

No, not really the same at all.

 

[2binak]

We buy some organic, some natural & very little processed foods. Mostly, we try to avoid the added antibiotics & hormones in meats & dairy.

 

[npmommie]

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.

I agree with this. We focus on locally grown and produced as much as possible.
there is nothing like a fresh local strawberry in June, whether its organic or not!!

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.

I buy from a lot of farms that are not certified organic but follow organic practices.

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.

I completely agree. I don't want monsanto type frankenfood either, and yes I consider it frankenfood

I would urge everyone to read micheal pollens books
omnivores dilemma and in defense of food

 

[Colleen27]

Going off track a bit here but HFCS made a major debut into the food supply in the early to mid 70s. It entered and the switchover was VERY fast. At age 30, you most certainly did grow up with HFCS in everything unless your parents controlled your intake of processed foods. Most people weren't aware of what was going on and didn't do that. At 46, HFCS didn't hit my life until I was a teen so I don't think I suffer the ramifications that a young child did. I think we are starting to see that now in the increased obesity and diabetes surges.

True enough. The soda companies switched in '84 and everything else quickly followed suit, but it did take time to get as widespread as it is now. My generation didn't cut their teeth on animal crackers made with HFCS, PB&J made with HFCS-sweetened jam on HFCS-sweetened bread, and wash it down with Kool-aid with HFCS the way so many of today's toddlers/preschoolers do.

 

[2girlsmom]

I grow and freeze or can significant portions of our vegetables, and freeze/can locally purchased fruits as well as much as possible. I do try to shop at local farmer's markets, and purchase locally grown. Working in the food industry, including products that are organic, I do not go out of my way to buy organic, as the regulations are both complex and not always clearly beneficial, in some cases, such as fertilizer options, may potentially be detrimental to humans. But I do try to buy "natural" foods, and locally grown as much as possible, for those things I don't grow on my own.

 

[OceanAnnie]

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

I agree. That's the reason I'm not ready to make the leap to organic. I want more information. I have cut down on the "dirty dozen". We tend to eat more bananas, avocados, and such.

 

[bicker]

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.

As for scientists having advantages over all other sources, that isn't always true.

I never said anything about scientists having advantages over "all" other sources. I said, very clearly, that the advantage I was asserting was over the projections from great grandparents, old yarns, and folks' own personal biases.

Can we assume that since you didn't reply to that, that you agree with it? If not, then why did you distort what I wrote, in what you insinuated in your reply?

They have their own biases which aren't always ignored.

While individual scientists have their own biases, the nature of science itself is a process, and a process that not only invites, but insists on objective, repeatable proof. Carl Sagan outlined, in great detail in his book The Demon Haunted World, why what you've tried to express here as a concern is not a significant concern at all.

Again, the point is that people should use multiple sources for insights about their health, but they should ignore unsubstantiated assertions from any source, including their own personal instincts or that of their ancestors, and instead heed the guidance of reason and the results of science.

 

[Geoff_M]

Here, GM crops are planted to allow indiscriminate spraying of fields with a toxic substance, plain and simple. It is the very model of externalized costs; Monsanto makes a tidy profit and the rest of us are left to cope with the environmental fallout.

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.

I also take issue with the fact that we haven't been given the opportunity to know if there are/will be heath consequences from the GM foods themselves. There's been little to no independent investigation, no long-term studies,...

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?