Pros and cons of organic vs nonorganic?

[AxisOfBeagles]

Now here are some more inconvenient facts about organic food:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2004/01/2334-busting-the-myth-of-organic-food/

It is quite prejudicial to cite a lobby organization that represents tobacco, fast food companies. big agribusiness, and the booze industries as being the source of "facts".

Personally, I dismiss your suggestion that the "organic food industry" is somehow the nefarious operator in this discussion. The point that many of us have been trying to make is that food produced without the application of pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fungicides is demonstrably less harmful - regardless of how it is labeled.

My vineyard is organic - although I would stress the term 'sustainable agriculture' as being more important in my mind - but my wines are not, as added sulfites in the winemaking disallows organic certification. But as a consumer, I sure would rather buy wines made from grapes free of pesticides, herbicide residues or chemical fungicides - just as I would rather eat eggs from chickens that eat similarly less harmful grain and green. I would also prefer to support producers whose agricultural practices are less harmful to the soil and their environment in general.

 

[chickengeorgeto]

... You spend a lot of time putting down organic. Why??? ...

No, I spend any time correcting falsehoods about GMOs. I don't spend any of my time attacking organic foods unless you consider telling the truth an attack.

 

[Demidog]

Plants engineered to repel pests use less pesticides, allowing natural insect predators to thrive and spread to non-GM fields
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/13/gm-crops-environment-study

QUOTE:

'Crops genetically modified to poison pests can deliver significant environmental benefits, according to a study spanning two decades and 1.5m square kilometres. The benefits extended to non-GM crops in neighbouring fields, researchers found.
Plants engineered to produce a bacterial toxin lethal to some insects but harmless to people were grown across more than 66m hectares around the world in 2011.
Bt cotton is one type and now makes up 95% of China's vast plantations. Since its introduction in 1997, pesticide use has halved and the study showed this led to a doubling of natural insect predators such as ladybirds, lacewings and spiders. These killed pests not targeted by the Bt cotton, in cotton fields, but also in conventional corn, soybean and peanut fields.'







Organic vs conventional produce
http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...r_kids_you_don_t_need_to_fear_pesticides.html

QUOTE:
'let’s focus on that other major claim about organic food—that is it’s healthier, particularly for kids, because it contains fewer pesticides. First, let’s start with the fact that organic does not mean pesticide-free. As scientist and writer Christie Wilcox explains in several eye-opening blog posts over at Scientific American, organic farmers can and often do use pesticides. The difference is that conventional farmers are allowed to use synthetic pesticides, whereas organic farmers are (mostly) limited to “natural” ones, chosen primarily because they break down easily in the environment and are less likely to pollute land and water. (I say “mostly” because several synthetic chemicals are approved for use in organic farming, too.)
The assumption, of course, is that these natural pesticides are safer than the synthetic ones. Many of them are, but there are some notable exceptions. Rotenone, a pesticide allowed in organic farming, is far more toxic by weight than many synthetic pesticides. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency setsexposure limits for the amount of a chemical that individuals (including kids) can be exposed to per day without any adverse effects. For Rotenone, the EPA hasdetermined that people should be exposed to no more than 0.004 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. Let’s compare this toxicity to that of some commonly used synthetic pesticides, like the organophosphate pesticide Malathion. The nonprofit Pesticide Action Network calls organophosphates “some of the most common and most toxic insecticides used today.” (Sarin, the nerve gas used in two Japanese terrorist attacks in the 1990s, is a potent organophosphate.) Yet the EPA has deemed it safe, based on animal tests, for humans to be exposed to 0.02 milligrams of Malathion per kilogram of body weight per day. This is five times more than the amount deemed safe for Rotenone. In other words, by weight, the natural pesticide Rotenone is considered five times more harmful than synthetic pesticide Malathion. The EPA’s recommended exposure limit for Glyphosate, another widely used synthetic pesticide—you might know it as Roundup—is 0.1 milligrams per kilogram per day, which means it’s 25 times less toxic by weight than Rotenone. The synthetic pesticide Captan is 32.5 times less toxic than Rotenone, and another one, Pyrimethanil, is 42.5 times less toxic than Rotenone. Rotenone is also not the only natural pesticide that out-ranks synthetic pesticides in terms of toxicity. The pyrethrins, a class of pesticides derived from chrysanthemums that are approved for use in organic farming, are more toxic by weight than Roundup, Captan, and Pyrimethanil, too.

It’s only fair to directly compare toxicities if people are being exposed to similar amounts of these synthetic and natural pesticides. Many organic farmers use pesticides as a last resort—so in theory, exposures to natural pesticides should be low. (Conventional growers don’t use pesticides unless they have to, either, though; spraying is expensive.) The problem is that farmers often “have to use a lot of the natural pesticides because they break down faster,” explains Linda Chalker-Scott, a professor of horticulture and landscape architecture at Washington State University. “One of the benefits of some of the more traditional synthetic pesticides is that they have been manufactured to be more effective at lower doses.”

 

[rookie39]

No, I spend any time correcting falsehoods about GMOs.  I don't spend any of my time attacking organic foods unless you consider telling the truth an attack.

The more you speak the more it cracks me up. You really don't have a clue about monsanto's big picture. You don't spend millions to cover up stuff for the good of humanity. Does that not ring a bell in your pea brain.
http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/monsa...ho-explores-risks-of-gene-modification-video/

 

[Demidog]

On the dirty dozen and clean fifteen:
http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/05/perspective-on-the-dirty-dozen/


'I’m sure you have heard of the “Dirty Dozen

and Clean Fifteen

” list of fruits and vegetables that the Environmental Working Group (EWG) publishes every year? Well, the new list is out for 2014 and it’s purpose is to guide it’s readers on how to “shop smart” when buying your produce; they also say “If a conventionally grown food you want tests high for pesticides, go for the organic version instead“, so I find this yet another “organic is best” marketing tactic. Asides from pushing organic, the biggest problem with this group’s list, is that it isn’t based on sound scientific evidence as my friend The Farmer’s Daughter explains in her post and it is also explained further here and here and here.
The fact of the matter is, we should all be eating more fruits and vegetables—conventional or organic—in our diets. Our produce is safe to eat and we should not fear marketing-schemes like the “Dirty Dozen” list. With the help of the pesticide residue calculator at Safe Fruits & Veggies, I’ve made an infographic to illustrate how even with the highest-ever recorded pesticide residues found on produce in 5 of the top 6 “Dirty Dozen” list (grapes were not available at Safe Fruits & Veggies), you would have to consume an extraordinary amount before you would feel any effect. To make this really hit home, I’ve based my numbers on servings per day for children.'



Read more on Nurse Loves Farmer: http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/05/perspective-on-the-dirty-dozen/





And here is the pesticide residue calculator which is grate tool to calculate how many servings of a particular fruit or veg that you can safely eat: http://www.safefruitsandveggies.com/

'Health experts and scientists say produce, grown either conventionally or organically, is safe to eat for you and your children. Not only are conventionally and organically grown fruits and vegetables safe and nutritious, Americans should be consuming more of these, not less, if they hope to reduce their risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.'

 

[chickengeorgeto]

It is quite prejudicial to cite a lobby organization that represents tobacco, fast food companies. big agribusiness, and the booze industries as being the source of "facts".

It is even more prejudicial to quote sources that push unscientific rubbish, pass out tin foil beanies, and who tout homeopathic snake oil.
One such origination I have in mind has the domain name, GMOFoodPoisoningBulletin.com. Isn't that an unbiased name?

I guess that it is time for me to roll out the big guns and go scientific on you. Ladies and Gentlemen, hold on to your hats, because here it comes.
Here is more evidence of the fickle nature of GMO opposition. This one is a doozey.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/

Flash, this just in from across the pond. A study of 600,000 women 50 years and older reveals that food, except for organic food that is, has no effect on breast cancer rates. In fact, according to Oxford University, women 50 years and older who eat only or mostly ORGANIC food ACTUALLY had HIGHER breast CANCER rates than those women 50 years and older who never ate NON organic food.

The charge being lodged against me by some is currently being used by The LA Times against the very anti-GMO originations whose opinions are currently being defended in this forum.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/21/news/la-heb-gmo-foods-medical-association-20120620
“Reviews by The American Medical Assn.,
https://www.google.com/#q=http://ww...g-just-test-gmos-first-says-ama/#.U3-NuTYo6M9
The above link is in no way different to the way that GM foods are currently treated or tested. In fact before approval GM foods are subjected to more rigorous testing than non-GM foods. But if you read the intentional prevarications published in the Anti-GM press they tell exactly the opposite tail.
the Food and Drug Administration,
http://www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/biotechnology/ucm346030.htm
the World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/
The question and answer format of the above link from the World Health Organization should put to rest any of the concerns you have with GM food. In fact it even says that GM food is subjected to a greater amount of testing than conventional food. But this fact is intentionally misrepresented or lied about by Anti-GMO activist.. Who is a poor boy to believe? I think I know which side is truthful and which side is not, and if you will study the subject in a fair, unbiased, and scientific way the only conclusion that you can draw is that GM food is as good as if not better than the old fashioned kind.
and finally
the National Academy of Sciences have all concluded that genetically engineered food appears to be as safe as any other.”
http://rameznaam.com/2013/04/28/the-evidence-on-gmo-safety/
The above link lists and describes the real truth concerning all the issues surrounding the GMO food fight.
I am not asking you to believe the information provided in the above links but I do highly suggest that anyone with an open mind save the last link to hard disk and study each issue the anti-GMO side raises in a scientific and non-biased fashion.
Gee, I just realized that the above scientific information is at least two years old if not older. You would think that by now that those who were interested in the truth and nothing but the truth about GMOs would have already gotten the memo. In this respect Anti-GMO activist are very much like Tea Party Birthers, who are blinded by conspiracy theories and thus have more in common with people wearing aluminum foil helmets than it has in common with the truth. Since this is a poultry forum dare I suggest that, “What's good for the goose is good for the gander?”

Now back to the science I promised.

Below find a link from the leader of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”, I am talking about National Public Radio. This supposedly Neo-Fascist mouth piece is reporting favorably on the pending approval of GM crops in Europe. So it looks like that before long Europe will be recognizing the world wide scientific concessions and approve GMOs for Europe wide cultivation.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...oves-to-approve-u-s-genetically-modified-corn

While European culture and history are rich in fine art, great museums, famous ruins from antiquity, and crumbling curiosities; the governments of Europe (as they should be) are unwilling to see their agricultural sector transformed into the new Stone Hinge or become
another Roman Coliseum simply to still the Green croaking toads on the far left hand side of the European castle moat.

 

[AxisOfBeagles]

It is even more prejudicial to quote sources that push unscientific rubbish, pass out tin foil beanies, and who tout homeopathic snake oil.

And where, pray tell, did I provide a link to any such site - with or without tin foil hat?

While I admire your passion, your arguments again fall far from the center of the target. As I said very clearly in my earlier post in this thread, there is no evidence that GMO crops present any health risk. That is not in question. But that does not make GMO okay, far from it. The risk with engineered seed crops is the slippery slope of patenting and controlling our food supply. You may be OK with a handful of corporations owning the patents to the basis for the nations food, but I am not. And make no mistake, Monsanto, et al, are vigorously defending those patents, even where 'their' seed lines are showing up in other seed stores and fields.

As for your defense of pesticides, I fear you are on the wrong side of the science you claim to be so familiar with. Further, it is again an issue that goes beyond the immediate 'safety' of my next purchase of broccoli but rather speaks to sustainable farming practices. Dependence on chemical pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc is demonstrably deleterious to soil health and a healthy farm environment, not to mention the tainting of our food supply.

Enjoy your dinner doused in roundup. I shall continue to support other small farmers like myself who are endeavoring to bring back small, diverse, sustainable farms and chemical free food.

 

[the foot]

Y'all, we can all holler at each other about this, but each must decide his own path. We chicken lovers must make our own decisions about whether we use non-GMO products, or whether we have concerns about certain poisons, or how we handle any other questions about growing poultry.

I assume all of us are thoughtful stewards of our livestock.

I personally have no concerns about GMO foods, but that may not be your way. I have big concerns about the herbicides/pesticides that my free running poultry encounter, but you may not worry about that too much. Follow your path, grow your livestock in an ethical manner, and it'll be ok. We should let our neighbor poultry grower do his best, in his own way. Those are his birds and his eggs.

I write in the masculine since I am a guy.

Foot

 

[chickengeorgeto]

.... The risk with engineered seed crops is the slippery slope of patenting and controlling our food supply. You may be OK with a handful of corporations owning the patents to the basis for the nations food, but I am not.....

That is rubbish. A hand full of big corporations (and universities) already control the food supply. I guess that you have never heard of Hybrid seeds before! Well hybrid seeds verities are just as subject to patens as GMO seeds are. and they have been around for 100 years or more. The whole issue of patens is an rotten organic red heron.

Quote:

Dependence on chemical pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc is demonstrably deleterious to soil health and a healthy farm environment, not to mention the tainting of our food supply.

Evidently you did not take the time to read the links I provided because this issue was covered and covered again and again in these links. The many benefits of GM technology include a dramatic reduction in insecticide and herbicide use. The fact is that herbicides like RoundUp are extensively used to produce natural or non GM crops. If you knew or understood the truth you would admit that. In fact under certain circumstances RoundUp use is even allowed with organic crops so you may find that you are unwittingly swilling more glyphosate than I am.

Now like I promised, I provided multiple links to well known and respected scientific organizations who BTW all agreed with my contention that GM crops are safe, healthy, sustainable, environmentally benign and actually good for Mother Nature. Now I and all the good people on this forum would appreciate if you would do as I have done.

 

[Demidog]

I'd just like to point out that I live in Europe, my husband is an agronomist and they grow GM sunflower at his work. So some European countries already grow GM crops, it's just a matter of time before the rest follow suit.

And no, he doesn't work for Monsanto. Neither do I. The seeds are from Syngenta which is a Swiss company.

This is the sunflower they are growing - http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database&mode=ShowProd&data=X81359