Slashdot Mirror

While organic food may not necessarily be more healthy, that's not necessarily the point.

It is better for the environment, and it does define higher welfare standards for animals- that's my reason for eating only organic certified meat. It has a very specific definition, and organic farms are tested regular to make sure they are meeting the standards (by the soil Association in the UK).

https://www.soilassociation.or...

Short of knowing your farmer or growing your own, it's your best bet for buying 'real' food. Scepticism is good, but know your stuff, as don't spread FUD.

Organic food is not sprayed with synthetic pesticides. They may or may not have pesticide residues, and the synthetic stuff is generally safer.

Firstly you will want to avoid "organic" foods (FDA approved e.g.) and go for organic foods (soil association or at least EU approved). Even that isn't perfect but it's a beginning. You will find that FDA "organic" food may even have been irradiated. No; I don't mean microwaved or something; I mean real, hard ionizing; measurably chemistry and nutritional value changing radiation. You detect that by looking for benzene in the food!!

Having done that I would love to understand your definition of "safer". The "organic pesticides" are generally simple chemicals and/or bio degradable. That makes it unlikely that they will ever build up in your body to a level which will have any measurable influence. Synthetic pesticides not so much. Probably if you took a bath in them, many of the current synthetic chemicals would be more survivable than the broad spectrum ancient "organic" pesticides the FDA allows. For most people; taking a bath in pesticide is not something they plan.

> If non-organic food is bad because pesticides are, surely farmers who handle lots of it ought to be dropping dead?

Not dropping dead, actually its worse than that. Using pesticides at work increases risk of Parkinson's three-fold :

Farmers suffer a living death

Actually some proponents do claim that organic food has more nutrients, or at least they do in the UK.

The major organic proponents/labelling system creators in the UK are the Soil Association. And what do they put right at the top of their "Why Organic?" page:

"Organic farming ... ensures the food you eat is nutrient rich."

Typical /. over-reaction, I'd like to see Supporting sources on this.

Typical pinhead "pooh-pooh" reaction. A few moments googling would find you numerous examples. Monsanto is a company of evil lying bastards who will clearly stop at nothing to control as much food production as possible.

Talk about your frightening wanna-be monopolists.

Cheers,

Point being that customers, when informed, seem to know what's good for them suggesting the market may be working in favour of the independent farmer (at least in the UK!)

I think, while in many cases I think technology is of a benefit to us, I also think that there are cases where it is harmful. We want to be selective about how we apply technology. For instance, there are drugs which have doubtless saved lives. With these drugs however, and with most technology, a person should be able to choose not to be exposed to them. No one tries for force a drug on a person, and a drug is usually used to treat a problem that exists, rather than given to everyone. Vaccines are provided to prevent diseases not currently present, however, even vaccines should be a matter of personal choice and no one should be forced to take them. The problem with GMOs is they are being forced on people who do not want them, and they are an artificial food which are being shown to have a good potential of being toxic. Furthermore, the issue of genetic pollution and the fact that crops tend to cross pollinate, endangers non-GMO fields where GMOs are not wanted, growing foods for people who do not want to eat GMOs. So the mere nature of GMO and its self replicating and transmissive quality makes it a danger to consumer freedom of choice to choose to not consume natural foods.

In regards to rat toxicity, As far as rats being intolerant of all potatoes, i am not sure about this. Rats being a scavenger species, might be equipped to handle, as such species often do, a large range of food items. I have been reading on the internet and I do see warnings to not give rats raw potatos, or green potatoes. Green potatoes are toxic to humans as well. Raw potatoes probably also would not be good for humans. Humans mainly eat cooked, ripe potatoes.

Problems have also been reported with corn and soy in rats.
http://uniorb.com/RCHECK/animalgm.htm

Also cows have been reported to die after eating GMO:
http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?n ewsID=576&pageID=177&subSiteID=44

Besides the potatos, we also have other reports of rats dying from eating GMO ingredients.
http://www.biotech-info.net/pusztai_article.html
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/84 8d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/9f8d26bd0d23b83c802 5704600419579!OpenDocument
http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey8.htm

I do think that there is something odd going on here, and that the intolerance was likely not caused by a general intolerance to potatoes, but rather to the GMO ones. Studies which use a control group of a rats being fed non-GMO items can prove that.
I think when it comes to something like GMO, which is an artificial food, I would rather play it safe and go with the same foods humans have been eating for thousands of years, that is, non-GMO natural foods. For me, the risk in life and health is not worth it, to allow for agribusiness to make a little more profit. I do not like playing games with health and placing myself in unneeded danger, and especially with this technology, my gut instinct tells me the danger is significant and real.

I am one who would say we should not mess with the foods that we are eating, or at least, force them on people who dont want them. I am one who does support choice about what goes into our bodies, and the right of every person to refuse to put artificial substances into them if they refuse.

I do think, humans have evolved for thousands of years eating a certain range of foods and suite of nutritional components that comes from natural foods. The further we get away from the foods we have evolved to utilise and which our bodies are best equiped to handle, the less our bodi

Perhaps you should shut your yapping and do some reading.

The Soil Association.

Organic standards are the rules and regulations that define how an organic product must be made. Organic standards are laid down in European Union (EU) law. Anything labelled 'organic' that is for human consumption must meet these standards as a minimum. The standards cover all aspects of food production, for example, animal welfare and wildlife conservation, and banning unnecessary and harmful food additives in organic processed foods.

Organic farming and processing are legally defined. Any product sold as organic must comply with strict rules set at UK, European and international levels. These rules ensure that consumers can be certain that they are buying a genuine organic product. Imported organic foods must have been produced and inspected to equivalent standards. There must also be full traceabiliy of organic ingredients back to the farmer.

There a number of different certification bodies in the UK, which carry out the inspections and paperwork to ensure that the standards are being met. Soil Association Certification Limited (SA Certification) is one of only a very few of these bodies that have chosen to set standards higher than the EU minimum in areas of animal welfare and nature conservation.

True.
It's so many things that can be said. Soil Association (UK) has a whole list of reasons at http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/0/ 80256ad80055454980256bb20038b8fe?OpenDocument&Clic k= .
Experiments in my little country (the Netherlands, somewhere in the west part of Europe) show that lowering the price helps.

We also have box-schemes making organic veggies more affordable: throw out the third man, get your veggies directly from the farmer. Cheaper, and additional benefit is that it is as local as you can get. Just a few years old and very popular. Imitated by the distribution centers unfortunately.

If you are really into it you could see if you can find a bunch of people to start a food coop. We have one and pay 5-20% less that in a shop.

most genetically modified foods aren't made for the direct betterment of mankind. rather they are modified for the betterment of the plant. So, rather than make a tomato that is free of salmonella, they are making tomatos that are yucky to tomato worms (for the most part).

The species that are being made for the betterment of mankind typically are done to rectify dietary defficiencies in a given population. For example, vitamin A rice for developing countries which often have large populations of people who don't get enough vitamin A (lack of causes blindness). The rice in this particular story isn't meant to be used to better all people, but (as i read it) to be a supplement for babies who are not breast-feeding (as it was engineered to have proteins naturally occuring in breast milk).

The problem with genetically engineering crops isn't that we are "babying" our immune system (that's a separate issue mostly involving the overuse of antibiotics). Rather, the problem is the overreliance on single species (such as the vitamin A rice) and the lack of natural diversity. Eventually an opportunistic pest is going to come along and decimate your rice field; a condition that would be limited if multiple strains of rice were to be grown.

It is a really bad idea to be sure

"Bad idea" doesn't even begin to cut it, however it has unfortunately been done.

There is in fact a logo & standard for organic food, in the Uk at least; it's provided by the Soil Association. Whilst I'm here -- I too think this is an excellent idea.
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles