More BBC propaganda!

sniffy · 30 Jul 2009 at 10:44

Well taste is a matter of opinion. I agree that it does generally taste better but certainly doesn't warrant the premium. If I wasn't a poor student I might say otherwise

Monkey Puzzle · 30 Jul 2009 at 10:47

AJUK said:
To anyone with an intellectual capacity greater than that of a peanut can see that organic food must be better than food that has been sprayed with chemicals! No study is needed, if you believe this twaddle then drink a glass of pesticide and then come back an argue you feel good.

It's ironic that you're calling other people sheep and idiots whilst spouting foolish nonsense.

Tefal said:
yes because drinking billions of times the amount of pesticide that is left on washed food is really comparable.

by your logic we should ban paracetamol as if you eat a bucket full you could die.

Nitefly · 30 Jul 2009 at 10:48

sara said:
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.

But the point is that simply isn't true.

Nitefly said:
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.

Dinomania · 30 Jul 2009 at 10:54

Nitefly said:
But the point is that simply isn't true.

Fair do's. In which case as well as a study comparing nutritional differences, we also need one comparing environmental impact.

I tend to pick up the cheapest OR what I know from experience to be the nicest-tasting stuff. If I pick up organic first, I do tend to look around for the cheaper non-organic version or I feel I've been a bit ripped off..!

GoatBotherer · 30 Jul 2009 at 10:54

Skyfall said:
Can you offer a scientific reason why "organic" food would be more tasty than "conventional" food?

No not scientific, just personal experience. I'm sure if I googled your question I would find research swinging both ways. I do enjoy a bit of research though but I don't have the time right now.

Streeteh · 30 Jul 2009 at 10:56

I've never believed that organic food is significantly better for you, but i've known for years that it's better for the environment. In fact, i don't think i've ever had anyone say to me organic food is better for you.

Sankari · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:01

Teki187 said:
Source

Complete rubbish, why on earth would anyone think spraying there fruit and veg with chemicals is just as beneficial then organic grown produce (or produce grown properly), would you drink a cup of pesticide?

Teki, this is about a study conducted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. How does this make it "BBC propaganda"? Wouldn't it be "London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine" propaganda?

But one thing that makes this article propaganda.....

Contradictions in the article are generally a sign of propaganda.

No, it's the exact opposite! The BBC has provided arguments from both sides of the case. If it was propaganda, they'd only provide one side of the case and ignore anything that contradicted the message!

Honestly, there is something seriously wrong with that part of your brain which enables you to think in a logical and rational manner. It was never particularly robust in the first place, but I now have grave concerns about its health.

Skidder · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:01

I eat mostly organic food because I find it tastes better not because of my health.

Strife212 · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:03

I don't really care about organic food myself but the article is misleading.

It is presented in a way as to claim organic food is no better at all; when it's just saying that they have no more nutrients. Well, obviously. Why on earth would they have more nutrients?

Nitefly · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:05

sara said:
Fair do's. In which case as well as a study comparing nutritional differences, we also need one comparing environmental impact.

Sadly, you cannot really have a study comparing environmental impact between the two and expect to draw many conclusions - there are far too many variables that are impossible to control and how you truly quantify environmental damage is difficult to say the least.

However, I have certainly read papers on web of knowledge showing the relative toxicity of organic pesticides and herbicides. This was also explained to me by 2 professors of agricultural biotechnology, who viewed it as a half-amusing sadistic joke

willhub · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:05

I dont care if it's organic or non organic as long as it tasted good.

Fenris · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:06

Strife212 said:
Why on earth would they have more nutrients?

I dunno I've spoken to a number of people who actualy think they do, that just because it has the word "Organic" on it, it is some sort magic super veg.

Dinomania · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:09

Nitefly said:
However, I have certainly read papers on web of knowledge showing the relative toxicity of organic pesticides and herbicides.

Well, that's close enough if the variables of the actual effect are too hard to manage. If people are going to start choosing one over the other, it ought to be an informed choice.

oli collett · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:12

Nitefly said:
Sadly, you cannot really have a study comparing environmental impact between the two and expect to draw many conclusions - there are far too many variables that are impossible to control and how you truly quantify environmental damage is difficult to say the least.

However, I have certainly read papers on web of knowledge showing the relative toxicity of organic pesticides and herbicides. This was also explained to me by 2 professors of agricultural biotechnology, who viewed it as a half-amusing sadistic joke

I think organic would be a lot better if they just dropped the "organic" factor and just focused on doing what is best for the environment and peoples health. In essence I think both organic and conventional farming can learn a lot from each other and I think a hybrid of the two would be a much more sensible model. Especially if they started to consider GM...

And don't even get me started on "biodynamic"...

TheCenturion · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:15

Did anyone actually expect Organic food to be much healthier? I didn't, I just buy it to avoid consuming any sort of pesticide. No one has said it has to be more nutritious, that wasn't the point of organic food, just for it to use less chemicals in production.

Sparky__H · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:19

anant_shah94 said:
I just buy it to avoid consuming any sort of pesticide.

pesticide is used in the production of organic foods.

div0 · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:20

Why do some people keep saying that you wouldn't drink a cup of pesticide, so non-organic food must be bad/worse for you?

You wouldn't drink rain water from a muddy pool in your 'organic' garden either.

I'm all for home grown food, and have nothing against people chosing organic - as I often do the same myself if the price increase isn't too steep. But some of the reasons for avoiding 'normal' food are laughable.

drunkenmaster · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:24

Teki187 said:
Source

Complete rubbish, why on earth would anyone think spraying there fruit and veg with chemicals is just as beneficial then organic grown produce (or produce grown properly), would you drink a cup of pesticide?

But one thing that makes this article propaganda.....

Contradictions in the article are generally a sign of propaganda.

Higher isn't quantified, organic food could cost 30% more but offer 0.00001% higher potassium, and no other increases in nutritional content, its "higher" but its not significant and not worth the increase in cost.

Its really fairly simple, pesticides aren't great, aren't healthy, but their are several things to consider, plants grow using certain nutrients, they don't just go "oh, heres some chemical x on my skin, I know, I'll replace nitrogen for that and change the process of my living" .

In reality, non useful chemicals are washed away by water/rain, they go into the soil and the roots aren't actually designed to draw said chemicals out of the soil.

Where does this assumption that putting some chemicals on/around/near plants instantly means they'll soak them all up and change their genetic make up, are people confusing pesticides, for nuclear waste accidentally?

In a great world no one would need to use pesticides or GM crops, but in reality, we have too many people and not enough farmers, if they don't grow large quantities of successful non ruined crops they go bust and lose their farms. Organic farming is more expensive and has more danger of crop loss with very very few benefits.

mattheman · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:27

The sale of industrial/ gm food grown in has been dropping in this country, organic food tends to be more smaller farms that have no link to the coporate world. this government have been pushing GM food with the backing of large coporations, All governemt regulation bodies are a joke, and are really there to help coporation rather than its citizens.

drunkenmaster · 30 Jul 2009 at 11:28

Nitefly said:
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?

Don't put the idea in a conspiracy theorist's head, you're just asking for trouble.

Next thread by Teki/Magick " Do they really use DTT on our crops???? damn lizards"