Organic Food not better for you

[The_Squid]

The chemicals are diluted to nothing in a rain, nothing happens when it rains, the potency is gone.

What an amazingly ignorant statement...

Look into the term bioaccumulation.

[blueblood]

What an amazingly ignorant statement...

Look into the term bioaccumulation.

There isn't even an effect on plants when a rain happens. The chemical is applied at a certain ratio mixed with water. When it rains the ratio changes.

Biaccumulation would have more of an effect with the original rate vs. A watered down rate would it not?

[cybercoma]

We should be clear that the study wasn't looking at what tastes better and it didn't say that organic food doesn't have any less pesticides. What the study determined is that organic food does not have a greater nutritional value than non-organic varients of the same things. The organic foods did however have roughly 30% less pesticides in them. So they're not "healthier" in the sense that they're not going to give you greater nutrition, but they may be more healthful in the sense that you're getting less pesticides in your diet. They may also taste better than non-organic foods.

[The_Squid]

There isn't even an effect on plants when a rain happens. The chemical is applied at a certain ratio mixed with water. When it rains the ratio changes.

Biaccumulation would have more of an effect with the original rate vs. A watered down rate would it not?

No. It is the accumulation of toxins up the food chain.

[The_Squid]

The organic foods did however have roughly 30% less pesticides in them. So they're not "healthier" in the sense that they're not going to give you greater nutrition, but they may be more healthful in the sense that you're getting less pesticides in your diet.

Not just in your diet. Even if they can be 100% washed off of foods, the pesticides are still an environmental hazard. They have detrimental effects on animals as well as the bio accumulation up the food chain, which eventually affects humans again! So eating organic foods is certainly better for the environment.

[blueblood]

Not just in your diet. Even if they can be 100% washed off of foods, the pesticides are still an environmental hazard. They have detrimental effects on animals as well as the bio accumulation up the food chain, which eventually affects humans again! So eating organic foods is certainly better for the environment.

All right how do you propose we feed 6 billion people and keep a lid on gas prices?

You take away pesticides and it's bye bye yields.

[Boges]

All right how do you propose we feed 6 billion people and keep a lid on gas prices?

You take away pesticides and it's bye bye yields.

That's the thing, for people that choose to pay more for marginally better tasting food it's their choice. But organic food isn't a solution to feed the world.

[Black Dog]

That's the thing, for people that choose to pay more for marginally better tasting food it's their choice. But organic food isn't a solution to feed the world.

Who said it was, hmmm?

[GostHacked]

All right how do you propose we feed 6 billion people and keep a lid on gas prices?

You take away pesticides and it's bye bye yields.

We can feed 6 billion right now. We don't have a food shortage, we have a food distribution problem.

But you only need to keep a lid on gas prices. Everything else follows the fuel costs. When gas goes up, you are going to pay more to do your job as a farmer, driver pays more at the pump with the truck he uses to deliver the goods.

I am not saying to get rid of pesticides, but we should change to possible natural pesticides that are easier on the environment. Which would make the food healthier because of less toxins.

The one thing that would put a lid on prices of fuel,

1 - build a new refinery in north america and refine the oil here into gas.(something that has not been done in 50 years apparently)

2 - stop invading countries which are taking valuable oil resources from the argicultural sector in order to power the war machine.

[cybercoma]

That's the thing, for people that choose to pay more for marginally better tasting food it's their choice. But organic food isn't a solution to feed the world.

It can be. Monocropping is what produces the need for pesticides. Planting a variety of things in your fields keeps the insect damage to a minimum. If you lose one part of the crop, you may not lose another. That kind of variety actually produces a larger total yield, but it's just not of a single agricultural product and that's the problem for agribusiness.

[Wild Bill]

You know, it's a miracle hundreds of thousands of people aren't dying before the age of 30 from all this so-called tainted food!

Organic food might taste better simply because it is likely fresher! It also is more likely to be locally grown, which is another plus in my book.

Still, these ideas that organic food is somehow more nutritious and safer is just National Enquirer type "science".

It is as scientific as astrology or the I Ching! Perhaps that's why the ideas are so popular. Anybody with hair in their ears can hear them and believe them.

No need to actually read and study a textbook. Everyone knows that is SOO unnecessary and besides, it's hard!

[blueblood]

It can be. Monocropping is what produces the need for pesticides. Planting a variety of things in your fields keeps the insect damage to a minimum. If you lose one part of the crop, you may not lose another. That kind of variety actually produces a larger total yield, but it's just not of a single agricultural product and that's the problem for agribusiness.

And your costs go up because of the need to buy sorting equipment, not to mention crop loss out the back of the combine from harvesting two crops instead of one. If planting a variety of things in your fields made a larger yield, why oh why isn't everyone doing it?

If it doesn't pencil out, it doesn't get done.

Organic cropping cannot produce the consistent yields that the current system we have now does. The opportunity cost of the one year of similar yields vs the years required to achieve that doesn't pencil out.

Edited September 5, 2012 by blueblood

[blueblood]

We can feed 6 billion right now. We don't have a food shortage, we have a food distribution problem.

But you only need to keep a lid on gas prices. Everything else follows the fuel costs. When gas goes up, you are going to pay more to do your job as a farmer, driver pays more at the pump with the truck he uses to deliver the goods.

I am not saying to get rid of pesticides, but we should change to possible natural pesticides that are easier on the environment. Which would make the food healthier because of less toxins.

The one thing that would put a lid on prices of fuel,

1 - build a new refinery in north america and refine the oil here into gas.(something that has not been done in 50 years apparently)

2 - stop invading countries which are taking valuable oil resources from the argicultural sector in order to power the war machine.

I have no problem with natural pesticides. If they are cost effective and perform comparably, they will be used.

I have no problem selling grain used for fuel. It keeps a lid on gas prices tighter along with your ideas. What is wrong with increasing the value of our exports of which north America is a world leader?

[The_Squid]

You know, it's a miracle hundreds of thousands of people aren't dying before the age of 30 from all this so-called tainted food!

You are getting all hysterical when no one has claimed that it is killing people in their 30's....

Still, these ideas that organic food is somehow more nutritious and safer is just National Enquirer type "science".

It is absolutely safer for the environment. Bioaccumulation of organic compounds (pesticides) is a growing problem. It is polluting the water systems. And organic foods have other positives, as you've said.

You are doing that thing where you are argue against a position that no one has espoused in this thread to make your argument seem stronger somehow.

No need to actually read and study a textbook. Everyone knows that is SOO unnecessary and besides, it's hard!

Pure hyperbole. You are being silly.

[wyly]

All right how do you propose we feed 6 billion people and keep a lid on gas prices?

You take away pesticides and it's bye bye yields.

we are having a detrimental effect on the environment likely due to a variety of causes primarily loss of habitat,pesticides,herbicides,climate change...as much as we dislike insects destroying them is not the answer it has a chain reaction with other species both plants and animals...and it's all tied together, in the short term pesticides increase yield but in the long term there is going to be rebound when yields drop, insects are vital for about 30% of our food production...and killing insect predators with poisons will also have a bye bye yield effect...

[blueblood]

we are having a detrimental effect on the environment likely due to a variety of causes primarily loss of habitat,pesticides,herbicides,climate change...as much as we dislike insects destroying them is not the answer it has a chain reaction with other species both plants and animals...and it's all tied together, in the short term pesticides increase yield but in the long term there is going to be rebound when yields drop, insects are vital for about 30% of our food production...and killing insect predators with poisons will also have a bye bye yield effect...

Yet with our pesticides we still have polination taking place and higher yields than ever. If pesticides were a problem for pollinators, they'd be gone already. Pesticides have been in use since the 70s and yet pesticides aren't having a detrimental effect to beneficial insects. Pesticides are a one time effect, and those with residual have effect for only a few days. The plants still get pollinated. Plants typically aren't sprayed at flowering with insecticide because the problem insects aren't active at that time.

It quite simple pesticides or starvation. I'll go with pesticides, it's Been around forever and so have the pollinators.

Edited September 5, 2012 by blueblood

[wyly]

Yet with our pesticides we still have polination taking place and higher yields than ever. If pesticides were a problem for pollinators, they'd be gone already. Pesticides have been in use since the 70s and yet pesticides aren't having a detrimental effect to beneficial insects. Pesticides are a one time effect, and those with residual have effect for only a few days. The plants still get pollinated. Plants typically aren't sprayed at flowering with insecticide because the problem insects aren't active at that time.

It quite simple pesticides or starvation. I'll go with pesticides, it's Been around forever and so have the pollinators.

bee population has declined by 50% in the last 25 years and it's blamed on on pesticides http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/29/crop-pesticides-honeybee-decline

pesticides have not been around forever...

[GostHacked]

Yet with our pesticides we still have polination taking place and higher yields than ever. If pesticides were a problem for pollinators, they'd be gone already. Pesticides have been in use since the 70s and yet pesticides aren't having a detrimental effect to beneficial insects. Pesticides are a one time effect, and those with residual have effect for only a few days. The plants still get pollinated. Plants typically aren't sprayed at flowering with insecticide because the problem insects aren't active at that time.

It quite simple pesticides or starvation. I'll go with pesticides, it's Been around forever and so have the pollinators.

Pesticides have not been around forever.

You are familiar with the colony collapse disorder that many scientists are worried about the bees that pollinate the crops?

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/04/pesticide-tied-to-bee-colony-collapse/

“The significance of bees to agriculture cannot be underestimated,” says Alex Lu, associate professor of environmental exposure biology. “And it apparently doesn’t take much of the pesticide to affect the bees. Our experiment included pesticide amounts below what is normally present in the environment.”

The likely culprit in sharp worldwide declines in honeybee colonies since 2006 is imidacloprid, one of the most widely used pesticides, according to a new study from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH).

The authors, led by Alex Lu, associate professor of environmental exposure biology in the Department of Environmental Health, write that the new research provides “convincing evidence” of the link between imidacloprid and the phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), in which adult bees abandon their hives.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/neonicotinoids-colony-collapse/

A controversial new study of honeybee deaths has deepened a bitter dispute over whether the developed world’s most popular pesticides are causing an ecological catastrophe.

Researchers led by biologist Chensheng Lu of Harvard University report a direct link between hive health and dietary exposure to imidacloprid, a so-called neonicotinoid pesticide linked to colony collapse disorder, the mysterious and massive die-off of bees across North America and Europe.

The study isn’t without critics, who say doses used in the study may be unrealistically high. But the level of a realistic dose is also a matter of controversy, and even critics say the findings are troubling.

“Our result replicates colony collapse disorder as a result of pesticide exposures,” said Lu, who specializes in environmental exposures to pesticides. “We need to look at our agriculture policy and see if what we’re doing now is sustainable.”

[blueblood]

bee population has declined by 50% in the last 25 years and it's blamed on on pesticides http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/29/crop-pesticides-honeybee-decline

pesticides have not been around forever...

Yet crop yields are soaring, if crop yields were tied to bee populations, then yields would have crashed. They did not.

I've heard of cell phone towers, funky weather, and insect disease also playing part to bee population decline. That's a question many are trying to solve.

[The_Squid]

Yet crop yields are soaring, if crop yields were tied to bee populations, then yields would have crashed. They did not.

I've heard of cell phone towers, funky weather, and insect disease also playing part to bee population decline. That's a question many are trying to solve.

Bees are insects.... pesticides kill insects.... I don't think it is a stretch to see the link! You are ready to blame cell towers before pesticides? Talk about tinfoil hats!!!

[blueblood]

Bees are insects.... pesticides kill insects.... I don't think it is a stretch to see the link! You are ready to blame cell towers before pesticides? Talk about tinfoil hats!!!

A google search shows multitude of sites with that theory. Whether it's plausible or not I don't know, my point is that there are numerous theories for the decline in bee population.

Diease also kills insects, so do funky weather patterns.

Pesticides also enable 6 billion people to be fed along with keeping a lid on gas prices thus helping to maintain our standard of living.

[wyly]

Yet crop yields are soaring, if crop yields were tied to bee populations, then yields would have crashed. They did not.

I've heard of cell phone towers, funky weather, and insect disease also playing part to bee population decline. That's a question many are trying to solve.

not all crops rely on insects for pollination, about 30% of our food crops rely on insects...then there is the bat decline, and the decline in amphibians, both vital insect controls, are the diseases that plague both somehow related to an increase in herbicides and insecticides?...

[GostHacked]

Yet crop yields are soaring, if crop yields were tied to bee populations, then yields would have crashed. They did not.

Bees are directly related to crop yield. Has been much MUCH longer than pesticides.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-of-the-bees-genetically-modified-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/

There are many reasons given to the decline in Bees, but one argument that matters most is the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and "Terminator Seeds" that are presently being endorsed by governments and forcefully utilized as our primary agricultural needs of survival. I will argue what is publicized and covered by the media is in actuality masking the real forces at work, namely the impact of genetically modified seeds on the reproduction of bee colonies across North America

Genetically modified seeds are produced and distributed by powerful biotech conglomerates. The latter manipulate government agricultural policy with a view to supporting their agenda of dominance in the agricultural industry. American conglomerates such as Monsanto, Pioneer Hybrid and others, have created seeds that reproduce only under certain conditions, often linked to the use of their own brands of fertilizer and/or insecticide.

http://unewsonline.com/2012/04/26/bee-populations-threatened/

Recently, studies have shown that the bee population in the several countries, including the United States, has been dying off. The cause: pesticides.

According to the published peer-reviewed journal Science, researchers concluded that “colonies treated with nonlethal levels of the pesticide had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/decline-of-honey-bees-now-a-global-phenomenon-says-united-nations-2237541.html

The mysterious collapse of honey-bee colonies is becoming a global phenomenon, scientists working for the United Nations have revealed.

Declines in managed bee colonies, seen increasingly in Europe and the US in the past decade, are also now being observed in China and Japan and there are the first signs of African collapses from Egypt, according to the report from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

The authors, who include some of the world's leading honey-bee experts, issue a stark warning about the disappearance of bees, which are increasingly important as crop pollinators around the globe. Without profound changes to the way human beings manage the planet, they say, declines in pollinators needed to feed a growing global population are likely to continue. The scientists warn that a number of factors may now be coming together to hit bee colonies around the world, ranging from declines in flowering plants and the use of damaging insecticides, to the worldwide spread of pests and air pollution. They call for farmers and landowners to be offered incentives to restore pollinator-friendly habitats, including key flowering plants near crop-producing fields and stress that more care needs to be taken in the choice, timing and application of insecticides and other chemicals. While managed hives can be moved out of harm's way, "wild populations (of pollinators) are completely vulnerable", says the report.

http://unewsonline.com/2012/04/26/bee-populations-threatened/

[wyly]

A google search shows multitude of sites with that theory. Whether it's plausible or not I don't know, my point is that there are numerous theories for the decline in bee population.

Diease also kills insects, so do funky weather patterns.

Pesticides also enable 6 billion people to be fed along with keeping a lid on gas prices thus helping to maintain our standard of living.

but there is no way you or anyone else can claim insecticides don't have an effect on bees, it's just not plausible...

[Shady]

The tomatoes I grow in my garden actually do taste better than the mealey ones trucked in from Mexico. Same goes for greens and strawberries. In short: I have never tasted supermarket produce or meat that is better tasting than what I get at the farmer's market. Is that in my head? Well, maybe. Do I give a shit? Not at all.

What's with your obsession with Mexico? You present a false choice. I enjoy non-organic fruits and vegetables grown in Ontario.

You guys are anti-science.