Sanity check - organic food?

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

@MormonGator Supertramp?  What do you confuse me with?  A KISS fan?

LOL!!!! 

No dude, you are way, way too cool to be a Kiss fan. Those guys are all losers. 

[dahlia]

I'm in a number of Facebook food groups, mostly vegan and vegetarian, some for health, some for ethical reasons. People are zealots about organic. More than a few will say you aren't eating right if you aren't eating organic.

Here's my thing. I think all food is political. If you tell me that I need to eat more fruit and veg to be healthy, then tell me the only way to do that is to eat organic, and I either can't afford it or can't buy it locally, then some folks need to get off their high horse and let other people eat what they can afford/obtain. Personally, I find a lot of the statements about organic, and how they are said, to be very close to racist and privileged. It's not organic foods, per se, that I have this problem with, it's some of its advocates. 

I just want people (especially blacks, sick people, and those with limited incomes) to eat more fruits and veg and to leave dairy alone. Organic or not, that's your choice. Shut the heck up about mine.

[kapikui]

Frankly most of the "I only eat organic food and you should too or you're icky"  crowd, along with many of the militant vegans, vegetarians, environmentalists etc are involved in what is known as virtue signaling.  It seems to be particularly prevalent on the left, but conservatives do it too, and though the term is rather modern, the behaivor is not. A biblical example would be the tithe givers who make a show about how much they're giving as was contrasted with the widow and her two mites. 

Make a show of your righteousness by not only abstaining from let's say meat, but make sure that EVERYONE around knows.  Get angry if someone eats meat around you, or doesn't give enough to the right charity, or drives a car that uses too much of the wrong kind of fuel.  It's a form of pride. 

Vegans are kind of the obvious modern example "How do you know if someone at a party is a vegan?  Don't worry they'll tell you."  Perhaps it's unfair, but it illustrates the example nicely. 

[Ironhold]

7 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 Showing my unhipness. What does that mean? 

Quoted for truth.

[NeuroTypical]

10 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

While I personally don't go out of my way to buy organic, I will do so if the price is close to the non-organic options. I firmly believe that the benefits of eating fruits and vegetables out-weighs the risks of consuming pesticides, herbicides and so on.

I don't understand what your second sentence has to do with your first sentence.  Organic farming uses pesticides and herbicides.  You know that, right?

Please see my earlier links about how organic pest/herbicides are not safer than non-organic.

10 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MonsantovsFarmers.php

For me this makes enough of a case for me to want to avoid supporting biotech, by casting my financial vote away from their products.

Oh.  The Institute of Science in Society.  They made the Quackwatch list of questionable organizations.  Homeopathy pushers.  Respectable name, wouldn't know Science if it came up and bit them on their behinds.

 

Quote

My point here being that I'm not interested in having a fight with anyone about my different viewpoint on this issue. I can see based on the general attitude here that I am a dissenting voice and sense the tone of even the original post to suggest that my sanity must be in question because I don't love Monsanto and I must be stupid to pay even a penny more for something that is labeled organic. Well let me just say that my sanity has never been questioned by my doctor - I graduated college with a 4.0 GPA and my IQ suggests that in any given group of 600 people I'm likely to be the smartest, or that I'm highly gifted and possibly genius - I feel funny saying this and don't do so to brag, just to make the point that people with different views don't have to be stupid or insane.

I do respect you for coming to this thread and sharing your thoughts.  I'd agree that pro-organic is in the minority in this thread, and I also agree my overall tone hasn't exactly been the pinnacle of charity and civility.  I don't think you're stupid or insane. Just wrong about some things.  You imply organic farming methods don't use herbicides/pesticides, and you cite i-sis.org as a reputable website containing science and reason.  

I also agree that those with firmly held opinions (you and I, and some others), probably won't budge an inch based on internet conversations and link battles.  But it's a good thread, for folks who want to know more.  They can look at your links, and at mine, and make up their minds.

I'm betting that unless they're anti-science homeopathy-believers, they'll probably not go with your links.  Or maybe if my attitude rubs them the wrong way, they'll go with you.

 

Edited July 4, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[NightSG]

On 7/1/2016 at 4:32 PM, MormonGator said:

I know people worship organic food but if you look at the science behind it, there are major flaws. 

For one thing, with the possible exception of the "turkey meatloaf" in that overrated hipster dump in Dallas, I'm pretty sure I've never seen an inorganic food.

That particular dish, I believe to have been primarily made of wallboard.

[NeuroTypical]

Oh- and twinkies - developed by space aliens out of space age space polymers to survive nuclear war.

 

[NeuroTypical]

20 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

\One thing that the organic label is useful for is helping to avoid genetically modified food. Sure you can argue that food has been being bred into genetic modification as long as agriculture has existed, but I simply don't see this as the same thing as splicing fish DNA into a tomato for instance. Monsanto does make me sick.

I was wondering, can you talk about which modification techniques are ok in your book, and which are not ok?  And maybe explain why?

[Ironhold]

Seems appropriate to be posting this here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/?postshare=4251467543938729&tid=ss_fb-bottom

107 Nobel Laureates in science signed a letter asking Greenpeace to stop their opposition to a particular variety of GMO rice, only for Greenpeace to write back and say "We don't know what you're talking about."

[dahlia]

15 hours ago, kapikui said:

Frankly most of the "I only eat organic food and you should too or you're icky"  crowd, along with many of the militant vegans, vegetarians, environmentalists etc are involved in what is known as virtue signaling.  

Yup. My son talks about this all the time. One of virtue signals that just ticks the heck out of me is someone saying, "I heard about X on NPR." Who gives a .... where you heard it? You only want to let me know that you're one of the cool elite who listens to NPR, as opposed to whatever country music station, FOX news, Telemundo,  or other useless communications source the rest of us peons get our news from. Academics, from admins to students, preface their comments with this crap all the time (I can't escape since I work on a university campus). 

I just laugh at them (inwardly, of course, because I'm a nice Mormon). 

[SpiritDragon]

14 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't understand what your second sentence has to do with your first sentence.  Organic farming uses pesticides and herbicides.  You know that, right?

Please see my earlier links about how organic pest/herbicides are not safer than non-organic.

Oh.  The Institute of Science in Society.  They made the Quackwatch list of questionable organizations.  Homeopathy pushers.  Respectable name, wouldn't know Science if it came up and bit them on their behinds.

 

 

I also agree that those with firmly held opinions (you and I, and some others), probably won't budge an inch based on internet conversations and link battles.  But it's a good thread, for folks who want to know more.  They can look at your links, and at mine, and make up their minds.

I'm betting that unless they're anti-science homeopathy-believers, they'll probably not go with your links.  Or maybe if my attitude rubs them the wrong way, they'll go with you.

 

I do respect you for coming to this thread and sharing your thoughts.  I'd agree that pro-organic is in the minority in this thread, and I also agree my overall tone hasn't exactly been the pinnacle of charity and civility.  I don't think you're stupid or insane. Just wrong about some things.  You imply organic farming methods don't use herbicides/pesticides, and you cite i-sis.org as a reputable website containing science and reason.  

I did actually read through (or at least skim through) quite  few of your links before posting. I appreciate the heads up that organic farming is not where it should be, and yet that is no surprise when done in the large scale setting. I've never really trusted the big-chain store brands boasting an organic label. The organic I trust is locally grown (yes I know local doesn't mean organic or vice versa) and I can tour the farm and watch the process from field to fridge if I desire. I should also clarify that I'm generally far more interested in buying local produce than I am organic, but if it happens to be both and at a competitive price I don't complain.

I have no specific vested interest in the institute of science in society or their website. I posted the link because it articulates points of concern for me such as Monsanto's patenting seeds and suing farmers for using seed when they never bought any from Monsanto in the first place. I just don't agree with the idea that food should be patentable and a corporation owns the rights to seeds making it so farmers can not harvest and use their own seed. I understand why they do it, but I don't agree with it.

This does also play into my point though  - You see I could now go on a tirade about how biased and worthless anything Stephen Barrett and his Quackwatch ilk put out, but I just don't care enough to spend the time. He is clearly biased and bias gets in the way of good science, of course you now that, right? I'll just say that for the intended purpose of alerting consumers of potential health dangers, they sure fail to mention when pharmaceuticals like VIOXX and paracetomol/acetaminophen were/are causing dangers to the public and in higher quantities and orders of magnitude than taking a multivitamin ever has or will.

I also don't understand the conflation of being interested in the quality of food to mean that one is anti-science or only those who are homeopathy pushers would be interested in figuring out what methods of supplying food will be sustainable and safe with sufficent yield(FWIW I don't believe in homeopathy).  As I've already stated I eat conventionally grown food more often than not, my main reason for choosing organic is to avoid GMOs, I'm plenty happy to see the non-GMO label as well - or to buy foods that are not commercially genetically modified

 

[NeuroTypical]

Thanks for the civil, measured response SpiritDragon!  I agree passionate tirades do little to forward conversation.  And you are doing well at keeping a skosh and a half less passionate than me.

I hear your buying preferences, and really have no complaint.  Here in happy, rich, food-laden first world countries, we get to make such choices, with or without good reason.  Folks can believe all they want that organic is safer, healthier, more sustainable, more 'natural', less corporate, better for the environment, less morally objectionable, yummier, or otherwise better.  I like to talk about why.  

Care to address my inquiry about which GMO processes you care to avoid, and why?  IMO, I posted a handy little infographic there. I hear you're averse to tinkering with food, just wondering why.  Do you think (for example) protoplast fusion is bad because it's playing God?  Or because you believe it creates an unsafe product?  Or maybe a vague emotional response that engineered food is just somehow wrong/bad/unsafe/ungodly?  I would like to hear your objections.

Edited July 4, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[estradling75]

14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Care to address my inquiry about which GMO processes you care to avoid, and why?  IMO, I posted a handy little infographic there. I hear you're averse to tinkering with food, just wondering why.  Do you think (for example) protoplast fusion is bad because it's playing God?  Or because you believe it creates an unsafe product?  Or maybe a vague emotional response that engineered food is just somehow wrong/bad/unsafe/ungodly?  I would like to hear your objections.

I think he did Neuro...

He said he didn't think that food should be patented...  Then he gave the example of corn fields as to why...  I don't know if you heard the story...  I have heard it but don't know how truthful it is...

The story is that they genetically created a super corn and patented the genetic pattern of that strain..  All it well and good and reasonable... But then the super corn cross-pollinated into another farmers field (which is what pollination is all about)...  Well the super corn took over this other guys field and all and then the company using its patents accused the other of thieving and stealing their corn and had the genetic patent as proof of ownership.

Assuming the story is true that is some shady and concerning crap for anyone trying to make a living farming... And anyone that thinks the free market is at its best went suppliers compete in the market for money rather then in the court system.

 

 

 

[kapikui]

I'm all for GMO as well as effective pesticides and herbicides.  I like this essay http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2013/09/if-youre-anti-gmo-youre-objectively-pro.html  What I hate about Monsanto, and what should end up with their assets being seized and massive criminal charges is when they decided that people who did not purchase their patented grain had to be sued into oblivion because some of their patented grain crosspolinated with the more natural grain.  Monsanto forbids keeping back some of your crop to plant again (also should have resulted in complete asset forfeiture) because they want you to have to purchase your seed from them every year. This farmer was doing things the old fashioned way.  When his neighbor's grain crosspolinated with his and Monsanto forced him to have it tested (another corporate offense worthy of shutting down the company) and it was found to have some amount of monsanto grain DNA, he had to pay them.  Since he couldn't they got his farm.  

As far as I'm concerned an attempt to engage in such an act should not only result in complete asset forfeiture by the company, as well as life sentences for everyone involved, but fines for anyone holding any significant amount of stock in said company.  Make sure that anyone that profits from such abominable behavior is completely and forever financially ruined and you'll see such things go away. 

As far as the concept of resistant plants as well as chemicals to kill weeds or pests, great. 

[NeuroTypical]

I know little to nothing about the Monsanto corporation, and its pros and cons.  

But yeah, interested to hear opinions of folks who are against the science of genetically modifying stuff that becomes food.  

[Guest MormonGator]

20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I know little to nothing about the Monsanto corporation, and its pros and cons.  

But yeah, interested to hear opinions of folks who are against the science of genetically modifying stuff that becomes food.  

Good ole' science to the rescue. 

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/11/13/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/

GMO foods are new and scary, so they are automatically feared. Sure they could probably cure world famine (that means they could stop starvation and save countless lives in the process) but yet we still complain. 

Unless you personally are starving to death, you need to be very careful about lecturing someone who is eating GMO foods. 

Edited July 5, 2016 by MormonGator

[NeuroTypical]

25 minutes ago, kapikui said:

I like this essay http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2013/09/if-youre-anti-gmo-youre-objectively-pro.html 

Heh - I like that essay too.  And it pointed me to things I didn't know about bananas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18koeppel.html?ex=1371528000&en=9ba6330bc3c06212&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&_r=0

 

[Ironhold]

There's a blogger known as the "Science Babe" who occasionally fact-checks claims about GMO foods and other such issues. 

However, she and her guest writers frequently end up so frustrated that they wind up swearing at the authors they're fact-checking, so I can't direct-link it. 

[NeuroTypical]

Yep - Science Babe.  So much snark on the pro-GMO side.  The name is a response to Vani Hari's "Food Babe" - one of the sources of for-profit disinformation on nutrition.  Folks can't make up their mind if Food Babe is an evil capitalist, or just plain anti-science deluded dupe who believes the crap she says about juicing and superfoods and whatnot.

[Guest MormonGator]

17 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

There's a blogger known as the "Science Babe" who occasionally fact-checks claims about GMO foods and other such issues. 

However, she and her guest writers frequently end up so frustrated that they wind up swearing at the authors they're fact-checking, so I can't direct-link it. 

Been following Science Babe on Facebook for awhile now. 
 

 

9 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yep - Science Babe.  So much snark on the pro-GMO side.  The name is a response to Vani Hari's "Food Babe" - one of the sources of for-profit disinformation on nutrition.  Folks can't make up their mind if Food Babe is an evil capitalist, or just plain anti-science deluded dupe who believes the crap she says about juicing and superfoods and whatnot.

I'm in a group called "Banned by Food Babe" as well. I don't post on it but I love following it. 

[SpiritDragon]

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Thanks for the civil, measured response SpiritDragon!  I agree passionate tirades do little to forward conversation.  And you are doing well at keeping a skosh and a half less passionate than me.

I hear your buying preferences, and really have no complaint.  Here in happy, rich, food-laden first world countries, we get to make such choices, with or without good reason.  Folks can believe all they want that organic is safer, healthier, more sustainable, more 'natural', less corporate, better for the environment, less morally objectionable, yummier, or otherwise better.  I like to talk about why.  

Care to address my inquiry about which GMO processes you care to avoid, and why?  IMO, I posted a handy little infographic there. I hear you're averse to tinkering with food, just wondering why.  Do you think (for example) protoplast fusion is bad because it's playing God?  Or because you believe it creates an unsafe product?  Or maybe a vague emotional response that engineered food is just somehow wrong/bad/unsafe/ungodly?  I would like to hear your objections.

I hope to get back to answering your GMO processing question in the near future - I've got a lot on the go and haven't had time to bang out an appropriate response for you. I can say quickly that I don't mind cross-breeding that occurs naturally, and I'm not in favour of transgenesis - to be honest I'm not terribly familiar with all the others. My main reasons for opposing transgenesis include not trusting that once we alter genes by introducing other genus and species genes that could not naturally intermingle otherwise that we could end up with unforeseen consequences. For instance once a genetically modified plant is outside the lab there is every possibility that it can contaminate other plants, I'm also concerned that by using these types of crops we are losing diversity within specific crops. Something like 93-96% of certain crops like corn and soy are supposedly GMO variants to my understanding - what if a blight comes along and knocks them all out and we are left without any viable crop options because they have simply taken over too far with one very specific plant type bred for consistency and resistance to many known issues, when along comes a new trouble and blind-sides it. Plant evolution seems to dictate that diversity is best and different variants help to perpetuate the species. I also question the health aspect - it seems like the main "study" being done is to monitor for effects in the population consuming them. And as always, although this isn't necessarily limited to transgenics, I don't like food being controlled by patent. I think it puts a lot of power into a corporations hand to be able to control the food supply.

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

Oh wow - someone got passionate enough about the issue to send a letter bomb to a GMO scientist.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/italy-investigates-explosive-letter-sent-european-food-safety-agency

Quote

A bomb squad earlier this week blew up the letter, which was addressed to a scientist who works on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The incident comes amid an ongoing and acrimonious debate over European regulation of GM crops and foods.

 

[Guest]

I had a roommate who once raved to me about how healthy organic food was.  He must have touted its virtues for about 15 minutes without me saying a word.  He felt that it was so important and so healthy that you were just asking for trouble if you didn't eat organic.

After he finished his spiel and asked my opinion I said,"Dude, you smoke two packs a day".

I had to explain to him,"I don't care what you do.  It's your body.  If you want to smoke, smoke.  If you want to eat organic, eat organic.  But don't go having an orgasm over how healthy all the organic food is and then go smoke two packs a day."

 

Edited July 5, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I had a roommate who once raved to me about how healthy organic food was.  He must have touted its virtues for about 15 minutes without me saying a word.  He felt that it was so important and so healthy that you were just asking for trouble if you didn't eat organic.

After he finished his spiel and asked my opinion I said,"Dude, you smoke two packs a day".

I had to explain to him,"I don't care what you do.  It's your body.  If you want to smoke, smoke.  If you want to eat organic, eat organic.  But don't go having an orgasm over how healthy all the organic food is and then go smoke two packs a day."

 

This coming from the guy who smokes three packs a day and washes it down with a bottle of gin. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

This coming from the guy who smokes three packs a day and washes it down with a bottle of gin. 

Hey, HEY!!  only half a bottle of gin.