Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but the NPR article mentioned that these are short-term studies. I think a lot of Organic-buyers worry about the long term effects of pesticides, etc. I found it strange that they said that most of the non-organic produce adhered to government regulation (so there are some that DON'T!?). As though the government can tell us with absolute surety what level is safe. There is so much that is still unknown in medicine today (like the long term effects of pesticides). 50 years from now, there may be studies showing a different (lower) level is safe and the government would have to change their regulations based on it.
I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but the NPR article mentioned that these are short-term studies. I think a lot of Organic-buyers worry about the long term effects of pesticides, etc. I found it strange that they said that most of the non-organic produce adhered to government regulation (so there are some that DON'T!?). As though the government can tell us with absolute surety what level is safe. There is so much that is still unknown in medicine today (like the long term effects of pesticides). 50 years from now, there may be studies showing a different (lower) level is safe and the government would have to change their regulations based on it.
You are absolutely correct. But one cannot assume that things allowed in organic farming such as organic pesticides are any safer long term simply because its natural. Asbestos, silica, radon, lead, mercury, plutonium, and even the sun all cause much more harmful long term affects than many synthetic chemicals. Organic produce was found with lower traces of pesticides, but far from none, and likely very different ones.
I guess what I am saying is that, yes the scientific conclusions on the safety can change in time, so is there a possibility that eating non-organic (or even organic) food can increase my risk for cancer... maybe. Then again so might being in the sun all summer, or conversely putting on sunscreen. I can put on Deet or risk getting some virus. I could minimize all my carcinogenic risks and then get colon cancer because my grandpa did. On the other hand, I could do everything as healthy as possible and get in a deadly car accident tomorrow. I wear my seat belt because it will help (again) if I get in an (another) accident, but I am not going to drive 15 mph or stay inside all day in fear of the chance. Likewise, I don't smoke, I check a new house for radon, and I wash my food before I eat it, but I am not going to lose sleep over it and I'm certainly not going put myself in financial difficulty spending 2-3X as much money on my food based on some remote possibility. If others choose to... great, more power to you, Life is full of balancing acts and we all make our own assessments of risks.
Natural organic toxins are/can be just as toxic to humans and the environment as synthetic toxins -- they are TOXINS after all. Anytime something is labeled or used as a "*-cide" it kills something, and may have the potential to cause harm to not only the target organism but also others. Regardless of whether it is organic/natural or synthetic, you should still follow reasonable safety measures... don't use more than you need or is recommended; use it only as directed; don't breath it, touch it, or ingest it directly; and wash your hands, tools, clothes, and produce after coming in contact with them.
With that being said, I fall on the organic side of the fence for three main reasons:
1. Because these substances are naturally occuring, it is reasonable to assume our physiology has adapted some mechanism to deal with them in moderate amounts (at the concentrations and frequencies we could reasonably assume to encounter them in our environment). We cannot assume the same for synthetics, which may be in a chemical/molecular form or designed for application that is outside our adaptations (even if the two substances are chemically/functionally similar).
2. Organic protocols stress using and exhausting the least drastic methods of controlling diseases, pest and weeds before restorting to these more potentially harmful substances and using the least amount of them necessary in a targeted manner. If the protocols are followed properly, only heavily infestations/infections that have resisted all other control measures would be treated with these more aggressive toxins and only those plants/plots that are affected to that level would be treated.
3. Many synthetics are created from petroleum and/or mined materials, and must be produced in manufacturing plants, which contributes to resource depletion, energy consumption, and other environmental hazards. The large majority (but NOT all) of organics are less resource and energy intensive.
But -- this study doesn't focus on the potential toxicity of organic vs conventional produce, it only measured available nutrients... which were similar, assuming that they were comparing the same variety of the same age grown in the same general location/conditions.
Natural organic toxins are/can be just as toxic to humans and the environment as synthetic toxins -- they are TOXINS after all. Anytime something is labeled or used as a "*-cide" it kills something, and may have the potential to cause harm to not only the target organism but also others. Regardless of whether it is organic/natural or synthetic, you should still follow reasonable safety measures... don't use more than you need or is recommended; use it only as directed; don't breath it, touch it, or ingest it directly; and wash your hands, tools, clothes, and produce after coming in contact with them.
With that being said, I fall on the organic side of the fence for three main reasons:
1. Because these substances are naturally occuring, it is reasonable to assume our physiology has adapted some mechanism to deal with them in moderate amounts (at the concentrations and frequencies we could reasonably assume to encounter them in our environment). We cannot assume the same for synthetics, which may be in a chemical/molecular form or designed for application that is outside our adaptations (even if the two substances are chemically/functionally similar).
2. Organic protocols stress using and exhausting the least drastic methods of controlling diseases, pest and weeds before restorting to these more potentially harmful substances and using the least amount of them necessary in a targeted manner. If the protocols are followed properly, only heavily infestations/infections that have resisted all other control measures would be treated with these more aggressive toxins and only those plants/plots that are affected to that level would be treated.
3. Many synthetics are created from petroleum and/or mined materials, and must be produced in manufacturing plants, which contributes to resource depletion, energy consumption, and other environmental hazards. The large majority (but NOT all) of organics are less resource and energy intensive.
But -- this study doesn't focus on the potential toxicity of organic vs conventional produce, it only measured available nutrients... which were similar, assuming that they were comparing the same variety of the same age grown in the same general location/conditions.
While I disagree with your #1 for the reasons I already discussed, the rest of your points are very valid, which brings us back to what you and I have discussed before and that link Big George posted not to long ago (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...l-agriculture/) that talked about how instead of villainizing the other side of the debate, both sides could really learn a lot from the other and we could actually make some real improvements using good things from both approaches. Then again we don't do that in our society anymore unfortunately.
...instead of villainizing the other side of the debate, both sides could really learn a lot from the other and we could actually make some real improvements using good things from both approaches. Then again we don't do that in our society anymore unfortunately.
What?!!?! You mean rationally cooperate?!!? Dude, that's just crazy-talk We certainly can't be havin' none of that now.
I'm so surprise by the title of this thread well in fact, organic food according to experts are grown naturally and there is no pesticides or fertilizer applied to it. Anyways, today you cannot distinguish if they are true organic or not unless you yourself planted it in your garden and you never put any pesticides to them. As long as they are safe to eat they are beneficial for me.
I'm so surprise by the title of this thread well in fact, organic food according to experts are grown naturally and there is no pesticides or fertilizer applied to it. Anyways, today you cannot distinguish if they are true organic or not unless you yourself planted it in your garden and you never put any pesticides to them. As long as they are safe to eat they are beneficial for me.
Even if one planted their own garden how can one be positive the water 100% free of chemicals?
That the rainfall coming from the sky is 100% chemical free?
Again, like I said...
If "organic food" did not help Steve Jobs... will it really help you????
Don't be that sheep that get fleeced (money wise) via hype, branding of a "title" called organic...
All organic materials (plant life, living organism) ARE in fact really "organic".
"1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) of, relating to, derived from, or characteristic of living plants and animals
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) of or relating to animal or plant constituents or products having a carbon basis
3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) of or relating to one or more organs of an animal or plant..."
Organic fruits and vegetables can sit for longer periods of time skightly fermenting and in many veggies and fruits growing mold and fungus. Additionally, organic soy is fine if fermented but soy milk,baby foods and soy bars are often not fit for human consumption. Mom's pump their infants with soy full of estrogen contributing to girls being fertile at 8 years old!! and the ratio to testesrone having a long list of physiologic problems in boys. Organic corn nearly always has fungal growth on surface . Wash with standard dish detergent and water ot sea salt and water 1 tsp of each method in water.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We certainly can't be havin' none of that now. 
