Organic food is a scam

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/08/19/organic.cooking.pv/index.html

Some (naive) people think organic food is "healthier" than food produced with evil pesticides. A new study shows organic and non-organic produce are identical in nutritional value. Of course, organic food takes more land to produce the same amount of food and more time in some cases, increasing costs and reducing yields. So we produce less at higher cost, and for what? Nothing. If we continue to reverse the Green Revolution, one of the greatest advances in the history of mankind, we'll not only never succeed in feeding all the humans on Earth right now, but we'll be able to feed less and less. Thoughts?
 
I'd just like to say i've never thought of pure organic food to be any healthier, other than the fact that the pesticides and fertilizers used are less harmful if a human were to consume said substance directly. I don't really see how this is a scam.
 
Yeah, no one thought it was healthier nutrient wise. It's healthier because you aren't eating chemicals.

Who the fuck was dumb enough to think an apple minus the pesticides would have more nutrients?

I could bake 2 cakes. Spray Raid all over one. They will both have the same nutrients. One is just covered in poison.

How is this a scam?
 
[quote name='HowStern']Yeah, no one thought it was healthier nutrient wise. It's healthier because you aren't eating chemicals.

Who the fuck was dumb enough to think an apple minus the pesticides would have more nutrients?

I could bake 2 cakes. Spray Raid all over one. They will both have the same nutrients. One is just covered in poison.

How is this a scam?[/QUOTE]

Right, that's exactly the same :roll:
 
In other news: people are fucking stupid and don't quite grasp what "organic" means.

The labeling of "organic" leads some people to really believe that these foods are taken care of - esp milk. Which is absurd. The same farmlands are the home of 'organic' cattle and non. Both live like fuckin' serious shit. But living in shit without growth hormones is enough to psychologically sate the hippies, evidently.

Which then reminds me about how corporations like to manipulate labeling in order to fool the customer. Like Home Depot's "Green section," where, a few years ago, you could buy a spade with a plastic handle: green because no trees were cut down to make it. And you could buy a spade with a wooden handle: green because it didn't use fossil fuels.

And then I think about the candy industry's attempt to get the legal definition of "chocolate" (yes, there is one) revised so they could substitute engineered fats, which are cheaper, to use instead of cocoa butter and still call the candy "chocolate."

(go find a bag of those hersey mini kisses - the candy-coated ones, I think - see where you can find the candy referred to as a "chocolate" on the pouch).

Then I think of fullmetalfan and the other Libs in here who want to cede greater power to corporations. fuck, who want to cede ALL power to corporations. So we can eat engineered fats and think it's chocolate, so we can use wooden spades and think we're saving the planet, and so we can drink organic milk and think that the cow is living the life of happiness, with tons of room and good food.

:lol:

Yeah, organic means the only chemicals in my food come from the chemicals in the ground and in the water from years of corporate pollution, and not from the farming process itself. I didn't think it meant more "riboflavin."

(sorry, just really like that word)
 
I never bought any because it was healthier. I've bought it when it looked/felt/smelled fresher in the store as sometimes it does taste a good bit better.

I've never been one to worry that much about pesticides and other chemicals. I just want fresh fruits and veggies that taste great, and will pay a bit more for organic if it's better in that regard at the stores I shop at.
 
The nutty people who claim all the chemicals in our food are killing s are really no different than other conspiracy theorists. The FDA thoroughly regulates everything we put in our mouths, if it were harmful, they couldn't sell it, but then those same people will use the same bullshit skepticism of the government to refute that claim too. In fact I read something recently that the water that comes out of the fountain has much stricter regulations attached to it than any water in a bottle.
 
The term 'organic' has been stretched a little thin, no?

It's impossible for me to get into any real debate in this thread because I just get distracted by how much I miss Vermont. Farmers markets with regional produce for most of the year, truly free range grass fed meats (drive 15 minutes outside of Burlington and you will start seeing the farms), REAL cheese, REAL butter and REAL bread. All this at a fraction of the cost above conventional foods. To be fair a lot of that was due to the cost of transporting the conventional stuff way up there in the mountains and all food was relatively expensive compared to other regions I've lived in.

It's hard for me to explain why I prefer organic and local food so much to the crap found in regular supermarkets over the internet. If you could be surrounded by it for a few years and then go back to conventional you'd sense the difference immediately.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In other news: people are fucking stupid and don't quite grasp what "organic" means.

The labeling of "organic" leads some people to really believe that these foods are taken care of - esp milk. Which is absurd. The same farmlands are the home of 'organic' cattle and non. Both live like fuckin' serious shit. But living in shit without growth hormones is enough to psychologically sate the hippies, evidently.

Which then reminds me about how corporations like to manipulate labeling in order to fool the customer. Like Home Depot's "Green section," where, a few years ago, you could buy a spade with a plastic handle: green because no trees were cut down to make it. And you could buy a spade with a wooden handle: green because it didn't use fossil fuels.

And then I think about the candy industry's attempt to get the legal definition of "chocolate" (yes, there is one) revised so they could substitute engineered fats, which are cheaper, to use instead of cocoa butter and still call the candy "chocolate."

(go find a bag of those hersey mini kisses - the candy-coated ones, I think - see where you can find the candy referred to as a "chocolate" on the pouch).

Then I think of fullmetalfan and the other Libs in here who want to cede greater power to corporations. fuck, who want to cede ALL power to corporations. So we can eat engineered fats and think it's chocolate, so we can use wooden spades and think we're saving the planet, and so we can drink organic milk and think that the cow is living the life of happiness, with tons of room and good food.[/quote]
I want economic freedom, not this bullshit that we have now where corporations can change regulations, to drive their competitors out of business, and make everything like shit. I'm not a monopoly capitalist.
When a product is shitty, (not made out of real chocolate, or something like that), buy a different one, that is made better.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']Farmers markets with regional produce[/QUOTE]

High five on that. Eat healthy, buy it less expensive, and fail to support large corporations in one fell swoop? Sign me up.

There are some benefits to living in a rural area - this is def. one of them.

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']When a product is shitty, (not made out of real chocolate, or something like that), buy a different one, that is made better.[/QUOTE]

When both products say "chocolate," or "organic," or whatever, how do you know better? What rights would you have to sue them for misleading you?

I'm curious how you feel about the class-action lawsuit filed against Applebee's.
 
[quote name='spmahn']The nutty people who claim all the chemicals in our food are killing s are really no different than other conspiracy theorists. The FDA thoroughly regulates everything we put in our mouths, if it were harmful, they couldn't sell it, but then those same people will use the same bullshit skepticism of the government to refute that claim too. In fact I read something recently that the water that comes out of the fountain has much stricter regulations attached to it than any water in a bottle.[/QUOTE]

Yes and no. The people worried about chemicals in food have virtually no proof those chemicals are harmful to them. However, the work to prove said chemicals don't do things like cause increased or decreased mutation in the flora and fauna and whatever is above them in the food chain hasn't been done either.

The possible negative impacts of the Green Revolution are like an open door leading to a darkened room. The nutty people think the boogeyman is in that room. The FDA/Monsanto types think gold and riches are in that room. Neither have stuck their heads in to look.
 
I hit up the Farmer's Market every Saturday. Really good fruit and veggies (some of the best stuff Ive had) and fairly priced. Everyone should look if they have any such local markets around them. Like Myke implied above, there really is no downside.

This is not the article I was looking for but I've seen this in many places. certain fruit like strawberries takes up a lot of pesticides while others like oranges has the same amount of pesticides when comparing the organic and conventional versions. It depends on the skin of the fruit and how it grows.

If you are worried about pesticides it only makes sense to buy certain items.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/256222_organic19.html
 
[quote name='mykevermin']High five on that. Eat healthy, buy it less expensive, and fail to support large corporations in one fell swoop? Sign me up.

There are some benefits to living in a rural area - this is def. one of them.



When both products say "chocolate," or "organic," or whatever, how do you know better? What rights would you have to sue them for misleading you?

I'm curious how you feel about the class-action lawsuit filed against Applebee's.[/QUOTE]
If a company is selling a product and lying about what is in it, that's fraud. For example, if I buy chocolate, I buy a local brand, made in Burnsville, MN, that I know is real chocolate.
The lady on weight watchers is an idiot though. Oh noez!1! There's a hundred more calories than it said! She might have to eat less, or exercise more! Its not like they force you to eat the whole thing. Now if they said it was made without pesticides, and it was, or it was made out of artificial things, when they advertised it as being made out of real things, that's fraud. This whole thing of, "its more calories than they advertised" is bull. Calories can vary based on many different factors, and besides, she shouldn't be eating the whole thing if it has too many calories in it.
 
I guess that study doesn't really mean anything to me. I don't really care if someone wants to eat organic or mass produced food. It's like the vegetarian and meatatarian (lulz) argument. Who really cares what someone else eats, just eat what you think tastes good.

@ the OP, I don't think we'll ever not be able to feed our earth's population. People somewhere (no matter what) will be starving while others have food to eat. It's just the way the world works. I also don't think we'll ever reverse the "green revolution".
 
Love the green revolution. Praise the green revolution. Embrace the green revolution.

No, you don't have to buy "tofurky," don't be silly. But recognize that environmental consciousness at a mass level is the only thing that will bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States en masse.

Ain't no regulation-less "goodwill" idea going to make corporations forget the bottom line and ignore the endless supply of cheaper-than-American labor out there.

But if we demand products that are made based on a standard higher than what governments require (our own and other nations'), that will bring jobs back to us.

And you won't have to drink soy milk if you don't have to.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']How much variance carries it into the territory of "fraud," however?[/QUOTE]
If it claims to be something its not, that's fraud. If it says its all natural, and instead its made with growth hormones, or artificial flavors, that's fraud. Its mostly black and white.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But recognize that environmental consciousness at a mass level is the only thing that will bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States en masse.[/QUOTE]

This is just begging for a source or stats or something...
 
Two things:

1) The lawsuit is based on a study that found the average fat content of the WW meals at Applebees was three times what the menu claimed. You're correct: variance means that a difference of 100 calories is probably not way, way outside a distribution of caloric content for restaurant food - but 3X the fat? Let's say I tell you this bag of movie theater popcorn is new, and only has 2g of fat in the entire bag. It is the same old movie theater popcorn, you discover. You're angry because of all the consumed fat you were told was not there was, in fact, there.

Where's the fraud? This is the problem that taking a "black and white" approach will get you. Menu sez 7g of fat, you're eating 21g. Regularly.

2) An additional problem with taking it "black and white" is who is responsible. If it's most Applebee's most of the time making these errors and untruths, it's one thing - but that wouldn't meet your "black and white" standard. But let's say in the middle of a dinner rush someone flops real, honest-to-goodness American churned butter on that there WW plate, meltin' all over your potato cracklin's of whatever it is Applebee's serves (haven't been in one in over a decade, thankyouverymuch). Now you've hit your "black and white" threshold metric - the menu said nothing about butter, but there it is! Misleading!

I'm trying to argue that this is far more complex than you give it credit for, and that taking a dichotomous approach is simply erroneous.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Two things:

1) The lawsuit is based on a study that found the average fat content of the WW meals at Applebees was three times what the menu claimed. You're correct: variance means that a difference of 100 calories is probably not way, way outside a distribution of caloric content for restaurant food - but 3X the fat? Let's say I tell you this bag of movie theater popcorn is new, and only has 2g of fat in the entire bag. It is the same old movie theater popcorn, you discover. You're angry because of all the consumed fat you were told was not there was, in fact, there.

Where's the fraud? This is the problem that taking a "black and white" approach will get you. Menu sez 7g of fat, you're eating 21g. Regularly. [/quote]
That's fraud then.
2) An additional problem with taking it "black and white" is who is responsible. If it's most Applebee's most of the time making these errors and untruths, it's one thing - but that wouldn't meet your "black and white" standard. But let's say in the middle of a dinner rush someone flops real, honest-to-goodness American churned butter on that there WW plate, meltin' all over your potato cracklin's of whatever it is Applebee's serves (haven't been in one in over a decade, thankyouverymuch). Now you've hit your "black and white" threshold metric - the menu said nothing about butter, but there it is! Misleading!

I'm trying to argue that this is far more complex than you give it credit for, and that taking a dichotomous approach is simply erroneous.
Click to expand...
Ask the waiter/waitress why there is butter on your food, tell him/her to take it back, you want one without butter. Problem solved.
 
Last episode of P&T Bullshit was about organic food. They at least claimed that the pesticides that many organic farms use are actually worse than the pesticides used at modern farms. Supposedly because the organic farms use older types of pesticides. Add to that the fact that a lot of organic foods are not grown by some small little farm, but by large corporate farms.

The taste test they did was pretty funny actually, nobody could tell the difference between the organic and regular food.
 
^Well they have butchered the label of "organic" there is now about 5 different versions.

-Organic
-Certified Organic
-Made with organic ingredients

are the 3 I know off the top of my head but then the standards change by country. Those are for U.S.

So, who knows which one P&T were talking about. Because true organic food (good luck finding it, aside from farmers markets) has no chemical pesticides.
 
I'm pretty sure they mean the "organic" food usually found in supermarkets. Not from farmers that sell at markets.

Even still, it seems most people can't tell the difference between organic and normal foods anyway.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']If a company is selling a product and lying about what is in it, that's fraud. For example, if I buy chocolate, I buy a local brand, made in Burnsville, MN, that I know is real chocolate.
The lady on weight watchers is an idiot though. Oh noez!1! There's a hundred more calories than it said! She might have to eat less, or exercise more! Its not like they force you to eat the whole thing. Now if they said it was made without pesticides, and it was, or it was made out of artificial things, when they advertised it as being made out of real things, that's fraud. This whole thing of, "its more calories than they advertised" is bull. Calories can vary based on many different factors, and besides, she shouldn't be eating the whole thing if it has too many calories in it.[/QUOTE]

Guess what happen to 2 of the local chocolate brand here? Hershey brought them out and close the factory after a year despise it being profitable. Now they just use the brand name and made it with junk and sell it as high end chocolate.
 
These kinds of situations are rough. Have you ever tried to wash a "regular" apple from the store? There is wax and crap all over it. You go to a local "organic" stand, or even buy the supermarket's "organic" label and you don't have film between you and your fruit. Is the wax even bad for you? Even the farms around here sell produce from afar, so it's really hard to avoid supporting big companies. At least "organic" usually means higher standards for farming practices (rotating crops instead of mono-cropping).

So what do you do? You can't always see the garbage on your fruits and vegetables.

One thing more important than "organic" or "natural" labeling is reading the ingredients. If you can't pronounce more than a few of the ingredients, don't eat it (unless you are really stupid and can't pronounce words like sugar). If you really want to eat said product, find out what the heck those ingredients are first.
 
It's semantics. While I think all natural shouldn't be something genetically engineered others would argue it grows in the ground and therefore it's natural.
As for Organic milk myke don't even get me started on Aurora and their bullshit. Truthfully given their history the USDA should YANK that label out from under them. Aurora is who Horizon sources from and either Whole Foods or Wild Oats store brand source their milk from Aurora as well. I've been informing people about it, AGAINST buying Horizon.
Also that whole argument about Organic not being enough to feed the world's people I call bullshit. I've heard this bogus argument trotted out time and again. There are ways to easily be handle Organic on a more massive scale. We can build up and make greenhouses out of said space. Imagine how New York would be able to feed themselves locally if they just used some empty skyscrapers, if there are any there.
 
Real food is a scam. Look at all the nutrition you can get in just one bowl of total!!1!

totalnutrition.gif


If you've been buying meat, vegatables, and fruit like a sucker, spread the word.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/08/19/organic.cooking.pv/index.html
If we continue to reverse the Green Revolution, one of the greatest advances in the history of mankind, we'll not only never succeed in feeding all the humans on Earth right now, but we'll be able to feed less and less. Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

Are you willing to give up meat? With the resources saved from overfeeding cows, enough food could be produced to feed the world.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Also that whole argument about Organic not being enough to feed the world's people I call bullshit. I've heard this bogus argument trotted out time and again. There are ways to easily be handle Organic on a more massive scale. We can build up and make greenhouses out of said space. Imagine how New York would be able to feed themselves locally if they just used some empty skyscrapers, if there are any there.[/QUOTE]

We already can't feed everyone. Do you have any proof or plan of how we could magically do so while accepting lower crop yields? Please inform us (and our farmers).
 
[quote name='rabbitt']Are you willing to give up meat? With the resources saved from overfeeding cows, enough food could be produced to feed the world.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm not. I happen to like meat, although everyone is obviously free to eat what they want. My problem with the "organic" movement, beyond the fraudulent usage of the term as pointed out by myke and others, is that it takes us in the wrong direction, decreasing food production when we need to increase it. We could also go into a related problem of the stupidity of ethanol that has been hoisted upon us by our political know-nothings, but that's kind of getting off-topic.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']No, I'm not. I happen to like meat, although everyone is obviously free to eat what they want. My problem with the "organic" movement, beyond the fraudulent usage of the term as pointed out by myke and others, is that it takes us in the wrong direction, decreasing food production when we need to increase it. We could also go into a related problem of the stupidity of ethanol that has been hoisted upon us by our political know-nothings, but that's kind of getting off-topic.[/QUOTE]

Ahh, if this were true. And by this, I mean that thousands of people will starve to death every year.
 
This organic shit is annoying. I enjoy shopping at Whole Foods occasionally, as I find SOME of the natural versions of food much better. (example: Peanut Butter and bread). There's a difference with natural and organic. Organic is kind of stupid, IMO. But "natural" can be pretty good.

Overall, I am not too overly concerned about what's in the food I eat. I know shit like McDonalds isn't great for you, however, McDonald's isn't my main diet. Therefore, it's OK. Same goes for anything. The only thing I don't really trust is HFCS, but that's because I'm not really educated in that subject.. everyone seems to be afraid of it, so :shrug:
 
[quote name='elprincipe']No, I'm not. I happen to like meat, although everyone is obviously free to eat what they want. My problem with the "organic" movement, beyond the fraudulent usage of the term as pointed out by myke and others, is that it takes us in the wrong direction, decreasing food production when we need to increase it. We could also go into a related problem of the stupidity of ethanol that has been hoisted upon us by our political know-nothings, but that's kind of getting off-topic.[/QUOTE]

We're free to eat what we want - then chill back. You like meat, I like organic food, they are both less efficient but they both taste better. In a way people are dumb mammals who need to reproduce until there are too many mouths to feed anyway. At least progressives support giving people control over their reproductive facilities with policies such as promotion of birth control, giving a woman a choice, doing away with this mandatory abstinence education only nonsense, etc. The "fruitful and multiply" "every cell cluster a miracle" crowd does way more damage to depletion of food stores then organic farming could ever dream of.
 
I will say one thing that I'm now buying organic and will continue to do so is milk.

Simply because the expiration dates are always a month or more in advance which keeps me from wasting it.

Even half gallons I usually don't finish since I hate drinking milk and just some times put it on cereal (prefer mixing my cereal with yogurt), but need it around for cooking things that require milk.

It costs a bit more, but I'd rather buy it once every 3 or 4 weeks than every week and waste 25-50% of it that I don't use before it expires or to hassle with buying even smaller sizes more often. Hell, it's probably cheaper than buying 2 half gallons a month that I don't finish anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm pretty environmentally conscious. I pay extra for a recycle can and clean up my neighborhood. But I am pretty sure nobody extra has been hired for it.

;)
 
[quote name='HowStern']elprinicipe, if you were so against decreasing food production you would give up meat.

It's the single most inefficient food to manufacture.


Farm animals outweigh people

A meat-based diet requires 7 times more land

Excessive use of energy & water

are a couple of prime examples.

And yuo call organic food wasteful? You're out of your mind. At least organic food is less chemicals polluting the earths soil.[/QUOTE]

Ah yes, the brilliant argument of "well, if you were really for increasing food production, you'd be a vegetarian!" Allow me to respond: if you really were for stopping pollution, you wouldn't be on the Internet.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Even half gallons I usually don't finish since I hate drinking milk and just some times put it on cereal (prefer mixing my cereal with yogurt), but need it around for cooking things that require milk.[/QUOTE]

Same here. I don't like milk by itself (chocolate milk is okay but not great), but you need it for cooking and for cereal. I never understood why cow milk is so great for you anyway, doesn't make sense.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Ah yes, the brilliant argument of "well, if you were really for increasing food production, you'd be a vegetarian!" Allow me to respond: if you really were for stopping pollution, you wouldn't be on the Internet.[/QUOTE]

Looks like someone resents being hoisted on their own petard :lol:

Way to completely miss the point elp. You're being manipulated, the article uses a widely misunderstood and abused food classification to score points against the sustainable agriculture community.

The modern meat industry is unimaginably cruel to animals and a vastly inefficient source of food. Much moreso then the organic food industry.

But we don't even need to go there - if you were really concerned with feeding the poor you would be flying rice bags over to Africa with the peace corps. This has nothing to do with feeding the poor and everything to do with conservatives irrational anger against those they perceive as hippies.
 
i eat both organic and... inorganic (what?) produce, milk etc.

i buy from farmer's markets whenever I can.

But to take an article that says organic food not more nutritional and then try and talk about the validity of organic or not is stupid.

sure, everyone cashes in on green, and some organic farms suck. but on the whole, a heightened awareness (even having this topic in a game forum) is to me signs of the success of the organic movement.

Even if you disagree with various implementations (every town, county, state and country is different) you can't argue with the fact that there is now a wider variety of produce where you as a consumer have a choice in deciding which to support.

So i buy starbucks shade grown but don't drink odwalla.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Ah yes, the brilliant argument of "well, if you were really for increasing food production, you'd be a vegetarian!" Allow me to respond: if you really were for stopping pollution, you wouldn't be on the Internet.[/QUOTE]


LOL.I hate when people use the term "epic fail" but you just epitomized it.

Nice try, though. Oh, wait...no, it wasn't.
 
[quote name='HowStern']LOL.I hate when people use the term "epic fail" but you just epitomized it.

Nice try, though. Oh, wait...no, it wasn't.[/QUOTE]

I guess you don't want to argue the point. That's fine, but it would be more courteous to just accept that and leave the thread than making a pathetic attempt at an ad hominem attack.
 
^There is no argument because you have no point.

I provided multiple informational links about how meat is the single most inefficient food to produce because you claim to be against decreasing food production yet you eat meat. You say "Well, don't use the internet if you're against polluting."
Like I said..Nothing to argue.. Show me that using the internet a couple hours a day is as wasteful as the pork industry. Then we'll talk.
 
[quote name='HowStern']^There is no argument because you have no point.

I provided multiple informational links about how meat is the single most inefficient food to produce because you claim to be against decreasing food production yet you eat meat. You say "Well, don't use the internet if you're against polluting."
Like I said..Nothing to argue.. Show me that using the internet a couple hours a day is as wasteful as the pork industry. Then we'll talk.[/QUOTE]

People often make the mistake of thinking ElP is bright. Sure he has the talking points down, and he consistently parrots conservative/big biz/religious right policy, but as soon we moved into the arena of critical thought the debate was over and you won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top