Organic Food is Nutritionally Superior, Scientists Say

[Chunes]

Ever wonder why in the last 50 years we've seen a rash of new medical conditions completely unheard of in former times?

No, because the answer is obvious: we have studied and categorized them.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

II dont see how they are benifical if they love to sting people and things.

Please tell me you're joking. Without bees, pollenation would be nigh impossible.

 

[skadistic]

I use organic lamb that feeds only on kentuky blue grass. It cooks up way better then farmed meet. But the beef I don't like organic as much. Most natural stuff is better.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I am not sure anyone has mentioned it, but "organic" food growing processes are generally less degrading to the soil, and in therefore in the long run have incredible economic benefits.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

You guys can eat all the organic food you want, I'm sticking with the cheaper stuff that tastes the same.

 

[GenMarshall]

You guys can eat all the organic food you want, I'm sticking with the cheaper stuff that tastes the same.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[woody60707]

It doesn't matter. GM crops still have a much higher bang for the buck.

Chemicals of any type do not matter when it comes to toxicity until they reach certain concentration levels - however, that doesn't matter with this study, which is concerned with the nutritional value of various organic foods, not talking about the various chemicals therein.

And in that case, it's pointless - just add the damned extra nutrients in the food to get food that's not fiddy times more expensive for the sake of being "natural".

This was what I was pretty much going to say, just not as well.

I am not sure anyone has mentioned it, but "organic" food growing processes are generally less degrading to the soil, and in therefore in the long run have incredible economic benefits.

You see the numbers I've seen, You just couldn't grow enough organic food to feed the world with the farms we have now. We would have to have 3 times the farms we have now to keep things even.

 

[Narz]

It doesn't matter. GM crops still have a much higher bang for the buck.

If you discount potential hazards related to them.

Chemicals of any type do not matter when it comes to toxicity until they reach certain concentration levels - however, that doesn't matter with this study, which is concerned with the nutritional value of various organic foods, not talking about the various chemicals therein.

It's not necessarily about the fact that pesticides are used but the fact that the food is inherently inferior because it is grown in chemical soil (and is less nutritious). That said, I don't want some "safe" amount of mercury or led in my body, I want none (or as little as possible anyway).

And in that case, it's pointless - just add the damned extra nutrients in the food to get food that's not fiddy times more expensive for the sake of being "natural".

Natural vitamins and minerals are more easily absorbed than chemical substitutes. Not to mention we are not even fully aware of the full spectrum of vitamins and minerals to the point where we can chemically recreate them all.

CivGeneral, your posts are so ignorant and you're attitude so poor I'm not even going to do you the service of pointing out their flaws.

 

[Narz]

I am not sure anyone has mentioned it, but "organic" food growing processes are generally less degrading to the soil, and in therefore in the long run have incredible economic benefits.

Right, good point. Conventional farming techniques are destroying topsoil at an unprecedented rate. It's worth noting that soil depletion was a major factor in the fall of many great empires. We have the hubris to think technology will solve all our problems but in many cases technology is worsening the problems. I theorize that 100 years from now all farming will be sustainable and mostly organic (by necessity).

My thoughts exactly.

So, what are you still doing on this thread???

 

[Che Guava]

No, because the answer is obvious: we have studied and categorized them.

It's not an identification problem. If you look at the rates of potentially deadly allergies, respiratory problems like asthma, even earlier development of children (hitting puberty earlier), something in our environment has changed in the last 50 years.

This goes against common sense. No insecticides mean produce is sicklier from the bugs getting at it.

Not if you have other means controlling insects that don't leave residues in your food or use those chemicals sparingly and only at critical times.

And does "organic" mean food hasn't been genetically modified? Shunning genetically-modified food is asinine. Who's going to decide who doesn't get to eat? YOU? Give me a break!

as if one had to do with another. Non-GM foods are just one part of what is considered 'organic' and the two, while connected, are nearly completely different issues...

Most importantly, so-called organic operations aren't nearly as efficient as modern operations. I love you guys, turning your back on science and progress.

Why 'so-called'? As for science and progress, as someone who studies agrosystems, I can tell you that a lot of science is showing that in the long term, organic systems can be just as or even more efficient as conventional agriculture, especially when you consider the ever-rising cost of inputs.

 

[Chunes]

You can say it but I don't believe you.

 

[skadistic]

You guys can eat all the organic food you want, I'm sticking with the cheaper stuff that tastes the same.

But it doesn't taste the same. A grass grazing animal will taste different then one that eats processed cereals.

Its not always more expensive either. I get carrots that say organic for the same price as the not organic.

 

[Narz]

But it doesn't taste the same. A grass grazing animal will taste different then one that eats processed cereals.

Also, it will be healthier, containing less saturated fat and more omega-3 fatty acids.

Not to mention the moral benefit of knowing the cow (though slaughter) led a pretty decent life up until that point.

 

[Red Door]

And in other news, Generalissmo Franco is still dead.

 

[woody60707]

Right, good point. Conventional farming techniques are destroying topsoil at an unprecedented rate. It's worth noting that soil depletion was a major factor in the fall of many great empires. We have the hubris to think technology will solve all our problems but in many cases technology is worsening the problems. I theorize that 100 years from now all farming will be sustainable and mostly organic (by necessity).

We don't grow our food by "organic" means because we couldn't feed everyone in the world unless we use technology. (by necessity).

 

[Narz]

We don't grow our food by "organic" means because we couldn't feed everyone in the world unless we use technology. (by necessity).

Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done.

Besides, industrial agriculture is not sustainable and cannot feed a growing population forever. Bringing population to a more sustainable level (thru birth control and maybe to-the-death pit fighting j/k) should be a major prerogative of world governments. Creating just enough food to create more hungry masses each generation is irresponsible.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Right, good point. Conventional farming techniques are destroying topsoil at an unprecedented rate. It's worth noting that soil depletion was a major factor in the fall of many great empires. We have the hubris to think technology will solve all our problems but in many cases technology is worsening the problems. I theorize that 100 years from now all farming will be sustainable and mostly organic (by necessity).

I see a serious move toward more greenhouses recently. The desire for a longer growing season should help keep soil in place round here.

edit- oh, background... soil don't wash away so much under a greenhouse.

 

[Narz]

I'm going to learn how to manage a greenhouse this summer.

By the fall I'll have skillz at growing stuff organically myself (as opposed to only just talking shnit about how great it is).

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

But it doesn't taste the same. A grass grazing animal will taste different then one that eats processed cereals.

Its not always more expensive either. I get carrots that say organic for the same price as the not organic.

When I buy food I look for what is the cheapest good tasting food. If it happens to be organic so be it, but normally its processed food.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

You see the numbers I've seen, You just couldn't grow enough organic food to feed the world with the farms we have now. We would have to have 3 times the farms we have now to keep things even.

What does three times the farms mean? Three times the land? Do you actually produce three times more per land area with industrial commercial farming? I have heard quite the opposite. Industrial commercial is more land-intensive while organic is more labor intensive.

Anyway, if you keep degrading the soil, your yields aren't going to stay the same.