Hi Bros & Sis,
Is Organic food good for our body ?
Pls let me share /know your comments , thanks.:)
Hi Bros & Sis,
Is Organic food good for our body ?
Pls let me share /know your comments , thanks.:)
Our bodies need carbon, so yes.
Food is good.
I think that most organic food is overpriced and overrated. The only organic stuff that I buy is oils such as olive oil, coconut oil, eggs and fish, everything else I eat is non-organic. I doubt that people who eat organic live any longer or ride any faster then people who eat regular food. For example, organic dairy products are 2-3 times more expensive then non-organic. I just buy regular dairy. Here is Canada it's illegal to use growth hormones and antibiotics on dairy cows, so regular non-organic dairy is good enough for me.
It's not that organic is good for you... Studies have shown that the nutrients in organic vs non-organic foods are similar.
But it IS that: If you do not eat organic foods you are also eating pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and other unknown chemicals that can cause long term health problems that are not well understood. And, you have no way of knowing what those chemicals are or how much of them you are ingesting. All you know is that you are eating stuff that you would never, ever voluntarily put in your mouth.
I suspect that if all the additional chemicals in non-organic food were printed on the nutrition label, there would be a LOT more people shelling out the extra cash for organic.
Also: many people mistake "organic" for "non-GMO". They are not the same and they are not exclusive of each other. You can have an organic Genetically Modified food. That is, imply being organic does not assure you that the food is not a GMO.
Organic, by definition, prohibits the use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, hormones, anitbiotics and so on...
Some producers cheat -- it is pervasive in our American food supply. I am sure that some supposedly organic producers cheat as well -- just as the non-organic producers do stuff that they do not want you to know about...
Or, are you referring to something else???
Machka is grossly overstating the case, but it is true that purity does not exist. Studies that test for levels of harmful chemicals (such as those associated with common pesticides) DO find significant differences between people who eat organic and people who do not. But it is troubling to know some of the things that some producers do that still counts as "organic".
I grew up eating non organic foods and for my age, I'm lucky that I'm pretty darn healthy. I don't take any kinds of medications AT all. And it's not because I'm in the anti-medication group, it's because I dont' have a need for it. I do eat very little meat so I'm not a vegetarian., despite the fact that my blood tests and my doctor think I am.
That being said, with my profession being in produce, I do suggest that people re think what organic really is. There are questions that often surface regarding again, how "pure" things are. If we are talking about growing foods with prohibitions in regards to pesticides and whatnot - yes, there are prohibitions but there are not BANS. Then you also have to think...okay they fertilize the soil with what? Compost? Animal by products? If so, did the animal that is supplying the by product purely organic as well? Was the food that the animal ate organic?
How about the trucks they are transported on? Has non organic foods been transported in the same containers, thus contaminating the organic product? How about the equipment and tools? Were they used in other crops? Were the trucks and equipment sanitized before being used? If so, what was used?
Yes, the organic foods may pass inspection, but what happens AFTER inspections? How are they handled then? Are they kept in separate refrigeration units? Are the processed in the same cleaning area? The clerks that stock it on the sales bins, have those been cleaned of all contamination from other product?
The questions go on and on.
Just to add to the questions ...
I've seen "organic" fields next to non-organic fields. I've watched as crop dusters go over the non-organic field ... they are pretty accurate, but if there is a hint of a wind, the spray is not limited to the one field (I've taken a face-full or two while cycling past on the adjacent road). I've observed the crops as they grow ... the non-organic field is lush and beautiful ... the organic field looks disease and pest ridden, all except for the edge next to the non-organic field.
When that non-organic field is harvested, it'll be sent off with a label indicating that the farmer did not put chemicals on his field exceeding certain quantities, and that would be true, he himself would have kept the chemicals at or below the allowable limits, but unless he doesn't harvest the nice-looking section next to the non-organic field, some of his crop would have benefited by the usual quantities of chemicals.
And who's to know ... unless there is some heavy duty monitoring going on?
I recall reading an interesting argument to the effect that organic food is _bad_ for us.
It essentially goes like this. There are measurable benefits from eating more fruit and veggies. So, if someone increases their fruit consumption by 1 serving/day, they are better off.
There are very few (if any) measurable benefits from eating organic vs. non-organic. I mean, sure, non-organic fruit might have traces of pesticides and you could probably set up an experiment that feeds rats pesticides by the spoonful for life and you might be able to demonstrate harm. (Or not. Glyphosate/Roundup has oral LD50 in rats which is "greater than 4320 mg/kg" (Wikipedia). That's practically the definition of "harmless". Oral LD50 of table salt in rats is 3000 mg/kg.)
However, organic fruit and vegetables are often substantially more expensive than non-organic. And non-organic fruit and vegetables are pretty expensive in terms of dollars per calorie to begin with. One pound of non-organic apples costs ~$1 in the U.S. and gives you 200 calories. One pound of tomatoes is $1 and gives you 80 calories. That's very expensive compared to grains, sugar and oil. So, if you push people towards organic, what's going to happen is that they will switch towards organic produce, but they will most likely buy less than they would otherwise, and compensate for the difference by eating more grains, sugar and oil. This results in a negligible improvement because they are eating organic fruit, more than cancelled out by the harm due to the fact that they are eating less fruit overall.
In concrete numbers, I may be misremembering but I think it was concluded that, for example, organic apples are harmful on the net if they cost more than 3c/pound more than comparable non-organic apples.
Do yourself a favor and learn about how, why and when pesticides are used in agriculture. Learn about use to harvest intervals. Learn usage rates. It is likely you have more pesticides under your kitchen sink than you will ingest in a lifetime of eating food grown by American farmers. More environmental damage is done by homeowners misapplying pesticides and fertilizers than farmers. Wolfchild why organic eggs? Even those chickens drop the eggs with their poop chute! Hey that said I no longer buy eggs I have a dozen hens and sell or give away my surplus.
Hamster brings up a good point with his LD50 example. To wit: the suggested application rate of Roundup ultra RT when used as an aid to tillage is two quarts per acre and the half life is rather quick with not much for a plant back restriction. The point being is that we often eat and drink things far more dangerous than our food. Salt, caffeine, nicotine (well I hope none of us use thsis one) alcohol, etc.
I can't speak for the US, but in my own area here in Australia, I have to deal with the export requirements to send fruit into the Asian market. The restrictions that are placed on how the fruit is grown are completely different to what people think -- use of fungicides and insecticides is very limited. Testing prior to shipment for any residues is very thorough. The conditions under which the fruit is kept on the journey to the market have to be carefully controlled. Simply, fruit that arrives at an export market in poor condition and with any trace of banned chemicals is useless, the entire shipment has to be dumped, and this all causes the grower a total loss.
The domestic market is a little less restrictive, but simply, the protocols are still defined and very restrictive.
The reason why fruit in the supermarkets is the way it is, is because customer demand it that way. Appearance, feel, and smell all play a role in whether someone will buy that piece of fruit or vegetable. To achieve that end, varieties have been cross-bred with particular aims in mind -- even a certain hardness to allow shipping from farm to market is needed to prevent bruising. Varieties are bred to resist certain diseases. Rootstocks are used to dictate the size and growing habit of trees. This has traditionally has not been done through genetic in laboratories, but through cross-breeding and years of growing trials.
But the antagonists towards that sort of food production aren't interested in doing the research and actually visiting farms and orchards to see what goes on. They rely instead on media coverage that is pitched to promote a point of view that often is irrelevant to the wider farming community.
Farmers also have an acute interest in maintaining certain insect populations that are natural predators, such as ladybugs to combat aphis, and of course bees that are absolutely essential to pollination and hence set rates for fruit.
The biggest barrier to keeping farming viable is getting disease under control. Bacteria, viruses and in particular fungicides are the things that affect fruit quality and crop yield. Then there are practices such as thinning of fruit to produce consistent size, quality and quantities. And it all could come to nought if the weather isn't suitable.
Does your business have a suggestion on how we do this? A simple yes or no would suffice.
Another question: What do you think about the depletion in the soil's nutrients between organic and non organic farming in regards to the quality of the produce?
(and good call on the "does your business ... " question. Methinks there's a reason this person is asking these questions that is more than just idle curiosity. :))
Think price and appearance first, along with the feel and smell. You simply won't get the food quality that people demand with true organically grown stuff; the volume just isn't there, and it doesn't take much for a black spot infestation, for example, to damage an apple crop beyond recognition (I've seen it happen).
There are sections in our supermarkets which have packaged organic food. It is small, half an aisle's worth, and the prices are way more expensive than for similar items on the shelves elsewhere. I think that indicates the amount of discussion that goes on about the subject.
On the other hand, there is a huge debate in Australia at present about the prices that the big supermarkets are squeezing down on the producers -- that is, the farmers. Cheap imports from countries such as South Africa and Chile (Chile is one of the biggest fruit exporters in the world), Vietnam, China and even New Zealand (dairy products and vegetables) are being used as leverage to push local farmers to the brink. Vegetable processing plants are being moved offshore (generally by American owners such as Simplot), putting entire communities at risk.
As it is playing out, the big two supermarkets are appearing (and I use that word advisedly) to do things such as stocking only meat that doesn't have added hormones and antibiotics, and putting on sale only fresh local produce. But their commitment falls short when it comes to their home branded products such as peanuts which are products of China, and stuff like canned chicken and tuna which are products of Thailand.
In the end, the commitments on fresh food are sales tactics to try to get an advantage over each other, appealing to the market segments like yours that think organic food is on the tips of everyone's tongues. Time will tell, however, whether US oranges (half of them rotten) are on the shelves again when the seasons turn.
And finally to answer your question on the comparison between the two -- having been involved in horticulture for six of the past eight years, I would put my money on "non-organic". There is great care taken to ensure the ground has the right balance of nutrients to keep plants healthy and fruit cropping in sufficient quantities and quality. The methods used in "organic" farming are too slow and labour intensive, and the risk is enormous in trying to combat pests.
But then, I come from the perspective of a someone living in a country that takes almost every aspect of public safety and consciousness seriously.
Then, about 5 minutes later I realized: "Hey! They're talkin' 'bout me!"
A mile west of me I have a "Bottom Dollar" market that sells a head of romaine for $1.68. A mile south of me I have a "Fresh Market" that sells high-end, mostly organic produce and a head of romaine is about $2.68.
... Guess which one I shop at?
... Sure I would prefer to eat organic. But the cheaper produce at the Bottom Dollar allows me to eat far healthier than without it. There, the cost of the fresh produce is competitive with the preprocessed junk.
The length of the list of non-organic ingredients allowed in processed organic foods would amaze you.