Got to be the weirdest post i've seen in a while.
Have you heard that joke about butter?
More BBC propaganda!
- Thread starter Teki187
- Start date
- Status
Have you heard that joke about butter?
Consigliere
Soldato
If the people they interviewed on the BBC are anything to go by, the report is a load of rubbish.
The guy defending it was saying 'differences were not statistically significant' and in the same breath said the differences were 'on average 66%'.
Any statistician would say that was statistically significant.
There's an €18 million EU report coming out soon which has much more recent, thorough and better data. The Food Standards Agency are holding back their own report on the matter until the EU one has arrived.
Though a bit of logic would say growing food on barren Earth then spraying it with a load of chemicals to stop it from dying wouldn't be as good as growing food on fertile Earth. Especially when it came to minerals.
The guy defending it was saying 'differences were not statistically significant' and in the same breath said the differences were 'on average 66%'.
Any statistician would say that was statistically significant.
There's an €18 million EU report coming out soon which has much more recent, thorough and better data. The Food Standards Agency are holding back their own report on the matter until the EU one has arrived.
Though a bit of logic would say growing food on barren Earth then spraying it with a load of chemicals to stop it from dying wouldn't be as good as growing food on fertile Earth. Especially when it came to minerals.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,083
Lol the complete lack of brain engagement by some people in this thread really makes me wonder about the human race sometimes, talk about over reacting and not thinking at all. Thread briefly saved by some sensible comments from tefal and the like.
Soldato
Do you realise, Teki, that they still use "nasty chemicals" on organic produce? The soil association is fairly strict on such matters, but given that most of our food is imported from places where regulation is nowhere near as strict, the idea that organic food is beneficial, because it's chemical free, is a complete non-starter.
Half of the problem is that organic food, and it's followers, seem to think that if it's natural, it must be OK. Copper Sulphate, for example, is used as a substitute for the synthetic fungacide mancozeb and is actually considered more harmful according to this paper:
http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/institutes/plant/PDF/2004/Trewavas-2004-757.pdf
Some further info here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/93/9304.htm#a22
Apparently the soil association were due to phase it out but I can't find much information on their website about it. On the basis of this I would suggest they haven't yet found an alternative.
As for the "BBC propoganda"
Finally, here's some sound reasons why one might buy organic:
1. Animal Welfare standards are generally a lot better
2. Quality of food is usually good
Growth promoters were banned in the UK in 1986 see here but I believe they are still used in the UK.
There is some serious misinformed opinion in this thread.
The belief that organic food is better for both human health and the environment, is a joke. Levels of pesticide and herbicide used are levels less than 1000x less than those thought to possibly caused detriment to human health. What do people think we are using in our fields, DTT?
The environmental side of it is perhaps one of the biggest commercial scandals of the century.
If you think that organic food does not use pesticides and herbicides - you are incorrect.
Large scale organic farms use organic pesticides and herbicides, made from natural compounds - technically making the process organic. The real swindle is that many of these are even more toxic than non-organic equivilents. For example, heavy-metal copper based toxins are frequently bunged on crops, which have had little research into their long term effects unlike conventional pesticides, and are known to be hazardous to wildlife.
It is an absolute joke - don't fall for it.
EDIT - Ah, beaten by oli collett
The belief that organic food is better for both human health and the environment, is a joke. Levels of pesticide and herbicide used are levels less than 1000x less than those thought to possibly caused detriment to human health. What do people think we are using in our fields, DTT?
The environmental side of it is perhaps one of the biggest commercial scandals of the century.
If you think that organic food does not use pesticides and herbicides - you are incorrect.
Large scale organic farms use organic pesticides and herbicides, made from natural compounds - technically making the process organic. The real swindle is that many of these are even more toxic than non-organic equivilents. For example, heavy-metal copper based toxins are frequently bunged on crops, which have had little research into their long term effects unlike conventional pesticides, and are known to be hazardous to wildlife.
It is an absolute joke - don't fall for it.
EDIT - Ah, beaten by oli collett
Soldato
What's that got to do with organic vs non organic though?
Man of Honour
Come on out with it.
No!Make my morning complete and tell meeeeeeee!
I can't tell you because you'll spread it.
Man of Honour
Don
having gown up on a farm, which has converted to being organic (for the subsidies at first), I'd much prefer to buy organic meat than non organic
one example is the sheep dip, with non organic sheep, they all get plunged into a bath of chemicals which kills all maggots etc on the animal
since you can't do this with organic animals, much better care is taken over over the animal, they all get regular feet checks (to stop infection), and all have trimmed backsides (to stop maggots etc). you get a far more uniform animal size and the quality of life of the is higher
imo
one example is the sheep dip, with non organic sheep, they all get plunged into a bath of chemicals which kills all maggots etc on the animal
since you can't do this with organic animals, much better care is taken over over the animal, they all get regular feet checks (to stop infection), and all have trimmed backsides (to stop maggots etc). you get a far more uniform animal size and the quality of life of the is higher
imo
No study is needed, if you believe this twaddle then drink a glass of pesticide and then come back an argue you feel good.
Hahahaha, you realise a glass of pesticide is a ridiculous amount more than you would ever consume within a month from produce, let alone one sitting?
Why don't you go and drink 3 gallons of water one after the other and see how you feel?
Soldato
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf
Had a quick look through and looks sound to me.
Soil association are complaining because some reviews were not taken into account. I think they've kinda missed the point of a meta-analysis - the idea is to reject studies that were of poor quality! Even when you look at the results including the studies that didn't make the grade there was little difference.
It finished in April:
http://www.qlif.org/
I don't think there's anything in there about nutritional comparison:
http://orgprints.org/view/projects/eu_qlif.html
Well this report suggests that wouldn't be logical..
Soldato
BBC propaganda again!!
Now someone pass my tinfoil hat I just seen an alien walk by!
Now someone pass my tinfoil hat I just seen an alien walk by!
Man of Honour
No!
He can't tell you because you might propaganda it
Associate
any statistician would know that a statistically significant difference ≠ significant statistical difference
Last edited:
Associate
Associate
There is more to organic food than just the use of pesticides. Organic farmers are allowed to use pesticides but typically as a last resort. To be true organic the use of chemical ripening, food irradiation, and genetically modified ingredients are not used.
I have done quite a lot of research over the last couple of years on health and nutrition, and this is my current way of thinking. I’m happy to agree that there might not be a lot of difference in the nutritional value of organic food compared to non-organic. BUT there is no doubt a big difference in taste. If you compare an organic apple with a non-organic apple of the same variety in my experience the organic apple will be half the size but as a result have twice the intensity of flavour. So for me it’s an argument of quality over quantity, and I choose quality.
I also prefer shopping at organic stores because most of the prepared foods like peanut butter and mayonnaise are more to my liking. I would choose real free range mayonnaise over processed, additive ridden, salty supermarket garbage every time.
I have done quite a lot of research over the last couple of years on health and nutrition, and this is my current way of thinking. I’m happy to agree that there might not be a lot of difference in the nutritional value of organic food compared to non-organic. BUT there is no doubt a big difference in taste. If you compare an organic apple with a non-organic apple of the same variety in my experience the organic apple will be half the size but as a result have twice the intensity of flavour. So for me it’s an argument of quality over quantity, and I choose quality.
I also prefer shopping at organic stores because most of the prepared foods like peanut butter and mayonnaise are more to my liking. I would choose real free range mayonnaise over processed, additive ridden, salty supermarket garbage every time.
Soldato
I think that's down entirely to personal taste, personally I've never noticed much difference between the two.
Can you offer a scientific reason why "organic" food would be more tasty than "conventional" food?
Surely the whole study has entirely missed the point?
Forget the nutritional value, I thought the bad thing about pesticides and fertilisers was that they seep down into the soil, then into the water table - or along into streams, and kill off lots of wildlife and local ecosystems.
So, great, non-organic stuff is just as healthy to /us/, but not to the environment they are grown in.
Forget the nutritional value, I thought the bad thing about pesticides and fertilisers was that they seep down into the soil, then into the water table - or along into streams, and kill off lots of wildlife and local ecosystems.
So, great, non-organic stuff is just as healthy to /us/, but not to the environment they are grown in.
- Status