Why Organic?

[Clay Mudd]

perchie.girl :

Quote:
doin a study right now. Okra rolled in cornmeal and fried in bacon grease..... heh heh heh... sorry I will go back to lurkdome....

But where's the "bad food" part?

 

[Katy]

Quote:
I don't put much stock in them either.....they can pretty much have a "study" show whatever the financing group wants it to.

 

[Katy]

Quote:
doin a study right now. Okra rolled in cornmeal and fried in bacon grease..... heh heh heh... sorry I will go back to lurkdome....

But where's the "bad food" part?

Yum...wish I had some fresh okra to fry in bacon fat right now!

 

[seedcorn]

The one problem is in studies using rodents is that the rodents are a special inbred line that has a high cancer rate. They are bred that way on purpose so that if what is being tested on them shows the slightest cancer causing effect, the rate will increase easily.

Hate to spoil some's fun, but GMO's have already been through that. Passed.

So what would the organic movement think if rats fed organic had a 80% cancer rate?

 

[chickened]

Is it as good as it sounds?

perchie.girl :

Quote:
doin a study right now. Okra rolled in cornmeal and fried in bacon grease..... heh heh heh... sorry I will go back to lurkdome....​

 

[perchie.girl]

Quote:
But where's the "bad food" part?

Yum...wish I had some fresh okra to fry in bacon fat right now!

Pork fat rules....

Sad to say the only kind I can find here is frozen and chopped. Same goes for Blakeyed Peas.... When ever I find them fresh I buy a whole lug. So I had to resort to some crafty Blakeyed pea reconstruction.... Frozen peas and frozen baby greanbeans. Because we normally just snap the peas and cook em pods an all. Nice ham hock or Salt pork.... If I were to do a garden it would be Black Eyed peas first. Sigh.

Dont know how.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
If the only independent variable in a controlled study was GMO versus non-GMO (as in, if one group was fed a diet high in GMO soy, the other must be fed an otherwise identical diet high in non-GMO soy), and there were significant cancer rate differences between the two groups, it wouldn't matter if the mice/rats were prone to cancer in the first place. The study would show an increased risk of one over the other, using a more sensitive measure. It's like trying to figure out the wind direction. Our heavy bodies are less affected by the wind, so we choose a more sensitive measure -- pull up some grass or something else that's light in weight, let it fall to the ground from head-height, and watch how it falls.

I've read through lots of published studies (on completely "other" things, for school) and it's hard to really discuss what a study found when learning of it second- or third-hand. I'd prefer to see what was actually done than offer an opinion on a study that was written about by a journalist with little more than a passing interest in the science behind it, which was then read by a member here, and summarized and written about again. No offense to anyone, but it's hard to critique something that's gone through all that "filtering."

But, back to the OP, for me it's about the philosophy of how the food is produced. While someone can be non-organic and still be very conscious of pollution and animal welfare and whatever, there is a less strict set of guidelines saying they HAVE to than with organic farming. When I see a "certified organic" stamp on a food product, a great number of questions (but not all) about how that food was produced are answered immediately. But that's just me.

ETA -- oh, and actually, was the mouse/rat line used particularly prone to cancer? That's another reason I'd have to read the study. Yes, most rodent studies use inbred lines, but not all inbred lines are prone to cancer. I'd have to see what the name of the line was that they used in the study to find out for sure. And, once again, that's a detail that gets left out when a study gets published in the mass media.

 

[chickened]

I'm not sure what you mean, bad food to the organic folk isn't always bad to me I just thought that someone would invent a pill or something that would nullify any bad food issues. I am not really one who believes all non organics bad but I put more faith in eating all foods in moderation and striving for a balanced diet not an obsessive one.
Quote:
doin a study right now. Okra rolled in cornmeal and fried in bacon grease..... heh heh heh... sorry I will go back to lurkdome....

But where's the "bad food" part?

 

[chickened]

I suppose this could apply to people as some are prone to cancer and other illnesses more than others.
Quote:
If the only independent variable in a controlled study was GMO versus non-GMO (as in, if one group was fed a diet high in GMO soy, the other must be fed an otherwise identical diet high in non-GMO soy), and there were significant cancer rate differences between the two groups, it wouldn't matter if the mice/rats were prone to cancer in the first place. The study would show an increased risk of one over the other, using a more sensitive measure. It's like trying to figure out the wind direction. Our heavy bodies are less affected by the wind, so we choose a more sensitive measure -- pull up some grass or something else that's light in weight, let it fall to the ground from head-height, and watch how it falls.

I've read through lots of published studies (on completely "other" things, for school) and it's hard to really discuss what a study found when learning of it second- or third-hand. I'd prefer to see what was actually done than offer an opinion on a study that was written about by a journalist with little more than a passing interest in the science behind it, which was then read by a member here, and summarized and written about again. No offense to anyone, but it's hard to critique something that's gone through all that "filtering."

But, back to the OP, for me it's about the philosophy of how the food is produced. While someone can be non-organic and still be very conscious of pollution and animal welfare and whatever, there is a less strict set of guidelines saying they HAVE to than with organic farming. When I see a "certified organic" stamp on a food product, a great number of questions (but not all) about how that food was produced are answered immediately. But that's just me.

ETA -- oh, and actually, was the mouse/rat line used particularly prone to cancer? That's another reason I'd have to read the study. Yes, most rodent studies use inbred lines, but not all inbred lines are prone to cancer. I'd have to see what the name of the line was that they used in the study to find out for sure. And, once again, that's a detail that gets left out when a study gets published in the mass media.

 

[perchie.girl]

Quote:
doin a study right now. Okra rolled in cornmeal and fried in bacon grease..... heh heh heh... sorry I will go back to lurkdome....


Very much so but unless you have eaten okra before try it somewhere that fries it. Boiled Okra is an aquired taste We used to use canned Okra and stewed tomatoes heat them up with a little bacon grease for seasoning and a little salt and pepper. Then served mixed in grits with bacon bits (the real kind). For dinner OH MY GAWD...good. But Okra this way is a little on the slimy side. Frying it takes some of that texture down and encorporates it in the crispy corn meal.... Yummy. When ever we got fresh okra we always fried it... Along with some Fried Tripe.... Whole other food group... LOL.