Why so cynical about organic food?

[gururu2]

The fuck? Are you serious? Selective breeding is randomly messing with DNA. GMO is specifically messing with DNA. One is random, the other is controlled. Both change the DNA of the organism. Is random likely to be better, safer and more easily characterized than specific? No, no it isn't.

Random is better and safer by virtue of the fact that it is not more easily characterized. When a corporation tweaks an organism you better believe it is to the advantage of the corporation and not humans or the organism/species which is fine tuned over millions of years to co-exist with the existing flora and fauna.

 

[Brainonska511]

Random is better and safer by virtue of the fact that it is not more easily characterized. When a corporation tweaks an organism you better believe it is to the advantage of the corporation and not humans or the organism/species which is fine tuned over millions of years to co-exist with the existing flora and fauna.

That makes no sense. Random breeding can also bring us stuff like the lenape potato - a potato that was blight resistant, but also had native genes of the family turned back on a bit too high (potatoes are members of the nightshade family, which are generally poisonous). Nature doesn't have motives to make things better for you.

Did you know plants have been patentable by people or corporations since the early 1930s? Farmers don't have to plant patented crops though - their free to use whatever they want; they just happen to usually choose the former because of their better performance. And the corporation might be a faceless entity, but there sure as shit are people that work within them, in nascent organizations, and academic labs that give a shit about making the world a better place. But because they can get a return on their investment, that makes them all evil 🙄.

 

[turtile]

Your pc, laptop, tablet or phone could catch fire and kill you. So what is your point?

If you don't think that pesticides are harmful, then don't wash your conventional fruits and vegetables before putting them on the table.

I've read varying reports about Roundup. The half life of the product seems to be between 45 and 180 days, depending on who is doing the reporting.

It shows that your argument fails. There's no evidence that glyphosate can kill you or harm you in anyway from the amount that is on your food. You do things every day that have a risk of death yet you worry about things that don't even have any evidence of any risk at all.

I don't wash my produce for pesticides. I wash them to remove pathogens off the surface. I mean, people get sick all the time and die from consuming produce with pathogens. Haven't heard the same about pesticide residue...

Random is better and safer by virtue of the fact that it is not more easily characterized. When a corporation tweaks an organism you better believe it is to the advantage of the corporation and not humans or the organism/species which is fine tuned over millions of years to co-exist with the existing flora and fauna.

Yeah, people just go ahead any buy plants just because a corporation developed it...

 

[Red Squirrel]

It might not kill you but it does not sound like something I want in my food:

http://www.pestgenie.com.au/msds/nufarm/GLYPHOSATE CT_24107578.pdf

Causes serious eye damage.
Harmful if swallowed.
Causes skin irritation.
Hazard Statement (s)
If medical advice is needed, have product container or label at hand.
Keep out of reach of children.
Read label before use.

 

[Brainonska511]

It might not kill you but it does not sound like something I want in my food:

http://www.pestgenie.com.au/msds/nufarm/GLYPHOSATE CT_24107578.pdf

And how much would you have to eat to be affected by glyphosate?

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/glyphotech.html

Oral

• Glyphosate is low in toxicity to rats when ingested. The acute oral LD50 in rats is greater than 4320 mg/kg.17 See the text boxes on Toxicity Classification and LD50/LC50.
• The acute oral LD50 for rats was also reported to be greater than 5000 mg/kg. The acute oral LD50 was greater than 10,000 mg/kg in mice and 3530 mg/kg in goats.1
• The isopropylamine salt is of very low toxicity to rats, with an LD50 greater than 5000 mg/kg.1
• The acute oral LD50 for the ammonium salt is 4613 mg/kg in rats.1
• The acute oral LD50 in three formulated products ranged from 3860 to greater than 5000 mg/kg in rats.4

....

Chronic Toxicity:

Animals

• Researchers gave beagle dogs capsules containing 0, 20,100, or 500 mg/kg/day of glyphosate for one year. No effects were observed; the NOEL for systemic toxicity is greater than or equal to 500 mg/kg/day.26 See the text box on NOAEL, NOEL, LOAEL, and LOEL. NOAEL: No Observable Adverse Effect Level
  NOEL: No Observed Effect Level
  LOAEL: Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level
  LOEL: Lowest Observed Effect Level
  
• Male rats were fed a diet containing glyphosate at 89, 362, or 940 mg/kg/day and females were similarly fed at concentrations of 113, 457, or 1183 mg/kg/day for 2 years. In the high-dose female group, researchers observed decreased body weight gain. In the high-dose male group, researchers observed decreased urinary pH, increased evidence of cataracts and lens abnormalities, and increased liver weight. No effects were observed in the low-dose and mid-dose groups. The LOEL for systemic toxicity was 940 and 1183 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively. The NOEL for systemic toxicity is 362 mg/kg/day for males and 457 mg/kg/day for females.27
• Laboratory rats were fed diets containing glyphosate at doses of 0, 100, 300, or 1000 mg/kg/day for two years. After 52 weeks, some rats in the two highest dose groups had enlarged salivary glands with cellular changes. The NOEL was determined to be 100 mg/kg/day.28
• The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of a combination of glyphosate and certain metabolites (AMPA, N-acetyl glyphosate, and N-acetyl AMPA) for humans is 1.0 mg/kg. In 2011, the International Estimated Daily Intake (IEDI) of glyphosate and major metabolites was estimated to range from 0-2% of the ADI.29,30
• The chronic reference dose for glyphosate is 1.75 mg/kg/day.31 See the text box on Reference Dose (RfD).

 

[Charmonium]

It might not kill you but it does not sound like something I want in my food:

http://www.pestgenie.com.au/msds/nufarm/GLYPHOSATE%20CT_24107578.pdf

Well, for comparison, check out the MSDS for sodium chloride

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927593

edit: as the old saying goes, 'the dose makes the poison.'

 

[NikolaeVarius]

http://www.hsegroup.com/hse/text/water.htm

Inhalation
Acute over exposure: Inhalation can result in asphyxiation and is often fatal.
Chronic overexposure: Chronic inhalation overexposure not encountered.
Skin Contact
Acute overexposure: Prolonged but constant contact with liquid may cause a mild dermatitis.
Chronic overexposure: Mild to severe dermatitis.
Ingestion
Acute overexposure: Excessive ingestion of liquid form can cause gastric distress and mild diarrhea.
Chronic overexposure: No effects noted.


Why the hell is this stuff in our food?

 

[slackerinabox]

fyi I bowed out of this thread because I agree with most of what was said, and bought some regular vegetables over organic and saved myself 20 bucks this grocery trip 🙂. We'll continue to opt for grass fed beef, because it tastes better

 

[Paladin3]

My best friends is a Cordon Bleu trained professional chef. He's semi-retired now from the restaurant game, but we cook together and talk about food quality a lot. We both agree that organic is basically bullshit, used by many farmers to make themselves think they are saving the world and because organic crops demand a premium in the marketplace. Modern farming practices can and often do lead to better quality crops if the grower doesn't cut corners to maximize profit.

That said, nothing beats home grown if you do it right. The home gardener grows and picks at the height of ripeness for the best quality and taste. They aren't worried about the logistics of having to get the produce to market hundreds or thousands of miles away, nor are they trying to maximize profits and tempted to take shortcuts.

I live way up in North Idaho. Produce choices here are sparse. Sometimes the organic on the shelves is a better product that the non-organic. Often not. I have a neighbor who grows non-organic tomatoes and apples, which are both better than anything I've ever bought in the store. They're magnitudes tastier than the low quality apples our local Wal-mart buys so they can offer them at $1.37/lb.

Learn to judge what is and isn't a good value in your food, and don't rely on a BS "organic" label to convince you it's better food at 3x the price. Be a smart consumer and you'll be happier.

 

[gururu2]

My best friends is a Cordon Bleu trained professional chef. He's semi-retired now from the restaurant game, but we cook together and talk about food quality a lot. We both agree that organic is basically bullshit, used by many farmers to make themselves think they are saving the world and because organic crops demand a premium in the marketplace. Modern farming practices can and often do lead to better quality crops if the grower doesn't cut corners to maximize profit.

That said, nothing beats home grown if you do it right. The home gardener grows and picks at the height of ripeness for the best quality and taste. They aren't worried about the logistics of having to get the produce to market hundreds or thousands of miles away, nor are they trying to maximize profits and tempted to take shortcuts.

I live way up in North Idaho. Produce choices here are sparse. Sometimes the organic on the shelves is a better product that the non-organic. Often not. I have a neighbor who grows non-organic tomatoes and apples, which are both better than anything I've ever bought in the store. They're magnitudes tastier than the low quality apples our local Wal-mart buys so they can offer them at $1.37/lb.

Learn to judge what is and isn't a good value in your food, and don't rely on a BS "organic" label to convince you it's better food at 3x the price. Be a smart consumer and you'll be happier.

A lot of local farms in my area don't have the USDA organic certification, but their practices are kind of in line with organic requirements. They produce good food. Local open range chickens lay awesome eggs. Deep yellow yolks, hard shells, delicious. The closest to these are organic eggs in the grocery. You're right it doesn't have to be organic, if the growers care about their product. If you cant get local, organic eggs ARE better than non-organic. Milk can be the same. Organic milk tends to have a buttery gamey flavor. I don't know if you have been to Europe or the Middle East but the milks are so freaking delicious. The closest to that flavor you can get here is to get organic. No large dairy house here can touch it. I am not sure why.

 

[turtile]

A lot of local farms in my area don't have the USDA organic certification, but their practices are kind of in line with organic requirements. They produce good food. Local open range chickens lay awesome eggs. Deep yellow yolks, hard shells, delicious. The closest to these are organic eggs in the grocery. You're right it doesn't have to be organic, if the growers care about their product. If you cant get local, organic eggs ARE better than non-organic. Milk can be the same. Organic milk tends to have a buttery gamey flavor. I don't know if you have been to Europe or the Middle East but the milks are so freaking delicious. The closest to that flavor you can get here is to get organic. No large dairy house here can touch it. I am not sure why.

It's because commercial farms in the US use the cheapest products to feed its livestock (corn, soy etc.). Because of this, you don't get a concentration of carotenoids and other compounds/minerals. That's why grass fed milk is yellowish, butter is deep yellow (US butter is died yellow and it's still not as yellow as grass fed) and meat has yellow fat instead of white.

The best butter and milk I've tasted was in Costa Rica where cows are mostly grass fed. I like butter and the butter I had there blew everything away.

 

[DrPizza]

I would not recommend that you or anyone else try the experiment outlined by Dr Pizza. If you want to say that you can't taste the difference between organic and non-organic foods, certainly that is a subjective opinion. Roundup's intend use is for killing grass and weeds. To suggest that you use it on grass and weeds, and then turn the soil over to plant food is mindboggling insane.

As a scientist, you should check this out further. For a primer, I went to the Roundup website. I cannot find anything that remotely recommends using Roundup as a pretreatment for a vegetable garden.

http://www.roundup.com/smg/goART3/H...usage-tips-roundup/27700106/6600005/26200004/

I'm not sure if you realize how moronic you sound. Roundup, when applied correctly, is incredibly commonly used for doing exactly what I outlined - killing the vegetation in a field prior to plowing and planting. I'm going to assume you're a citiot (idiot from a city who thinks he knows what happens on farms) and not someone who lives in any sort of rural area. Glyphosate, when used in prescribed concentrations, is extremely safe. In the environment, provided it doesn't get into ponds, etc., it rapidly breaks down. Spray, and plow under a few days later, after it's had a chance to migrate through the plant to the roots. Thus, with annual crops, even without round-up ready seeds, weeds can be minimized. How the hell do you think weeds are cleared from new farm land? 10,000 illegal immigrants wandering around, pulling them out by hand?? No. Herbicides are used. Glyphosate being one of the most common, and is often mixed with 2,4-d (another common herbicide).

You've referred to ill health effects of glyphosate - and those effects are from excessively concentrated (if not drinking it straight out of the bottle.) You may as well tell people not to put salt on their steak because if you consume 3 kilograms of salt at once, it can kill you. To spray an acre of field to kill off, say, grass, you would use roughly 1 quart of 41% concentrated glyphosate, with a lot of water. Roughly 1 part in 100. Other types of weeds require up to 2 or 3 ounces of concentrated glyphosate per 128 ounces of water. I don't recommend it, but you could probably drink an 8oz glass at that level of concentration, without any major ill effects. I routinely spot kill certain types of weeds in my pastures - types that spread quickly and that are nutritionally poor for my animals. I can't stand thistle. I've never had animals get sick from grazing on weeds that have been sprayed.

Again, at the most, 3 ounces of 41% glyphosate per 128 ounces of water - and that's enough to spray hundreds of square feet.

 

[GasX]

It's safe to drink, but I am not drinking it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

 

[uclaLabrat]

It might not kill you but it does not sound like something I want in my food:

http://www.pestgenie.com.au/msds/nufarm/GLYPHOSATE CT_24107578.pdf

MSDSs are all written like that. I assure you the one for ethanol is much scarier. You still have a beer though, right?

 

[DrPizza]

MSDSs are all written like that. I assure you the one for ethanol is much scarier. You still have a beer though, right?

If you read all the way through that MSDS,

The concentrate is of low toxicity if swallowed.
Amounts swallowed incidental to normal handling procedures and use are not
expected to cause injury.
Possible symptoms of exposure include: nausea, vomiting and gastrointestinal
discomfort and diarrhoea.
Ingestion of a large quantity of the undiluted product may result in
hypotension and pulmonary oedema.

The list of possible symptoms is little different than all those commercials on television for various drugs that list the possible side effects. Those effects are not seen in the majority of patients. Except in this case, "oh, you've got some gastrointestinal discomfort because you accidentally swallowed a teaspoon of the concentrate? Diarrhea too? You'll be fine."

 

[Bubblehappy]

Free-range organic chicken beats the shit out of the regular chicken. That's the only organic I buy into.

 

[gururu2]

If you read all the way through that MSDS,

The list of possible symptoms is little different than all those commercials on television for various drugs that list the possible side effects. Those effects are not seen in the majority of patients. Except in this case, "oh, you've got some gastrointestinal discomfort because you accidentally swallowed a teaspoon of the concentrate? Diarrhea too? You'll be fine."

[/FONT]

MSD sheets don't often include long term information if studies are lacking; see "no exposure standard..." and "no special ventilation required". Now that we know that the WHO has linked glyphosphate to cancer, the MSDS will probably change soon.

 

[Brainonska511]

MSD sheets don't often include long term information if studies are lacking; see "no exposure standard..." and "no special ventilation required". Now that we know that the WHO has linked glyphosphate to cancer, the MSDS will probably change soon.

That WHO report is garbage. There is no quantification of how much actually could cause cancer and almost no studies supporting that assertion. Plus, its in stark disagreement with recent assessments from Germany's version of the EPA. And there have been animal studies on toxicity of glyphosate- its quite safe.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....rc-almost-alone-claims-it-could-cause-cancer/

 

[gururu2]

That WHO report is garbage. There is no quantification of how much actually could cause cancer and almost no studies supporting that assertion. Plus, its in stark disagreement with recent assessments from Germany's version of the EPA. And there have been animal studies on toxicity of glyphosate- its quite safe.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....rc-almost-alone-claims-it-could-cause-cancer/

Your natural distrust of WHO and your unequivocal trust in Monsanto perplexes me. One seeks to make the world a better place for humans, one seeks to make a better place for Monsanto.

 

[Brainonska511]

Your natural distrust of WHO and your unequivocal trust in Monsanto perplexes me. One seeks to make the world a better place for humans, one seeks to make a better place for Monsanto.

It's not unequivocal trust in Monsanto. It's trust in the science that has shown that glyphosate is not toxic to people at the level it is used. And on top of it, the WHO's report is completely at odds with what other agencies have found, the body of scientific literature, and lacks the fundamental aspect of toxicology that the dose makes the poison. Simply calling something a hazard tells you almost nothing about how much exposure will increase your risk of developing cancer. Take a look - formaldehyde, a chemical on the definitely causes cancer list, is found naturally in many fruits. Does that mean we should avoid this definitely cancer causing substance by not eating those fruits?

Also, I don't quite understand the internet's hardon for Monsanto hate.

 

[Capt Caveman]

It's not unequivocal trust in Monsanto. It's trust in the science that has shown that glyphosate is not toxic to people at the level it is used. And on top of it, the WHO's report is completely at odds with what other agencies have found, the body of scientific literature, and lacks the fundamental aspect of toxicology that the dose makes the poison. Simply calling something a hazard tells you almost nothing about how much exposure will increase your risk of developing cancer. Take a look - formaldehyde, a chemical on the definitely causes cancer list, is found naturally in many fruits. Does that mean we should avoid this definitely cancer causing substance by not eating those fruits?

Also, I don't quite understand the internet's hardon for Monsanto hate.

Just one of many reasons:

Farmers who buy Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seed produced after each harvest for re-planting, or to sell the seed to other farmers. This means that farmers must buy new seed every year. Those increased sales, coupled with ballooning sales of its Roundup weed killer, have been a bonanza for Monsanto.

 

[Brainonska511]

Just one of many reasons:

Why is that a reason to hate them? Almost every company that sells patented seeds (something that could be done since the 1930s) has similar agreements. No one holds a gun to a farmers head and forces them to buy a specific brand of seeds, nor would farmers be buying them if it was costing them money over buying another brand of seeds or using off-patent seeds. Monsanto isn't the only seed supplier. Seed saving isn't a big deal for most farmers.

 

[ElFenix]

question: much organic milk is UHT, which explains the long sell by date lead in comparison to regular milk (often a month+ compared to less than a week). every other time i've come across UHT milk (such as in SE asia, where milk was all UHT from australia), it did not need refrigeration prior to opening. so, does my organic UHT milk need refrigeration? i leaning toward it doesn't and it's only in the refrigerated section because that's where people expect it to be.

 

[Red Squirrel]

MSDSs are all written like that. I assure you the one for ethanol is much scarier. You still have a beer though, right?

Ethanol is also not the main ingredient. It's like what, 5%? It's also natural as far as I know, made through distilling, they don't actually take a can of ethanol and dump it in there.

But even then, if you drink too much alcohol it's not good for you and can damage the liver. It's all about long term effects. When talking about GMO and pesticides it is assumed that the exposure is very high and constant given people have to eat every day, so even if the concentration is small, it adds up.

I would trust organizations like the WHO way before I trust a corporation that's in it for the money when it comes to information about health. In general the food industry is quite corrupt. They are making us sick and know it, but don't want to change anything because money. Pretty much every product you buy is formulated to save them money, not for our health.

 

[Brainonska511]

But even then, if you drink too much alcohol it's not good for you and can damage the liver. It's all about long term effects. When talking about GMO and pesticides it is assumed that the exposure is very high and constant given people have to eat every day, so even if the concentration is small, it adds up.

And how would exposure to GMOs cause damage? GMO has only a tangential relationship with pesticides, and pesticides are not exclusively used in conventional farming. Plus, the amount of pesticides in foods is exceedingly small and far below the maximum daily intake allowed, which is already set at a quite conservative level. Here's a calculator for you: http://safefruitsandveggies.com/pesticide-calculator

I would trust organizations like the WHO way before I trust a corporation that's in it for the money when it comes to information about health. In general the food industry is quite corrupt. They are making us sick and know it, but don't want to change anything because money. Pretty much every product you buy is formulated to save them money, not for our health.

No one is saying you have to trust the corporation. The science has already been done independently and verified the relative safety of many of the items we're discussing here.

As for what the WHO says on GMOs: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

8. Are GM foods safe?
Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

But with respect to glyphosate, practically every study has found it is very safe at the levels it is both used at and the levels it might be found in food.

And with respect to the safety of GMO foods: no discernible effect has been seen in numerous long-term feeding of animals.