Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Organic food not healthier

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    You don't think the freshness factor could have accounted for the perception in taste?

    I saw a special on TV a few years ago where they did a series of blind taste tests and showed that organic food does not taste better. In fact, it often has inferior taste. Here is a similar study:
    I would guess - guess - the freshness factor is a huge deal.
    Again, I only go organic for fruits, veggies, eggs and dairy. I don't see the point in organic chips and crap like that. If you're going to eat crap, eat crap, dammit!
    Awesomeness now has a name. Let me introduce myself.

    Comment


    • #17
      I know that the eggs in Costa Rica taste much better than here. They taste eggier and the yolks seem to be larger in proportion to the whites. I love love love eggs in Costa Rica.
      "Wuap's "problem" is that he is smart & principled & committed to a moral course of action. His actions are supposed to reflect his ethical code.
      The rest of us rarely bother to think about our actions." --Solon

      Comment


      • #18
        Nor is organic food necessarily more environmentally friendly. Some of the organic farms require large amounts of energy to get their products to the consumers in the big cities when there are closer, less "organic" alternatives.

        Plus, there's tilling:

        http://www.economist.com/node/119117...226b1e574f5cc1

        Like I wrote in that other thread about attitudes towards progress, somehow there's a mistrust of science in genetically modifying food, loading up animals with steroids, or using chemicals to boost growth.

        While there should be no compromise to health, by and large these are the concerns of the rich world - those of us who don't really have to worry about securing sufficient food for their families. We have the luxury of worrying about the ethics of our meat-production or the chemicals in our bread. Most of the world just needs more to eat.

        Barring a worldwide epidemic, increasing yields is the only way to feed the planet's growing population. There just isn't that much more arable land to be tapped. Biofuel subsidies, climate-change, water needs, etc. are all going to have an impact on agriculture as well.

        In early 2011, The Economist had a special report on feeding the 9 billion people that should be around by 2050. Here are the first and last articles from that special report

        http://www.economist.com/node/18200618

        http://www.economist.com/node/18200642
        "More crazy people to Provo go than to any other town in the state."
        -- Iron County Record. 23 August, 1912. (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lc...23/ed-1/seq-4/)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Solon View Post
          Nor is organic food necessarily more environmentally friendly. Some of the organic farms require large amounts of energy to get their products to the consumers in the big cities when there are closer, less "organic" alternatives.

          Plus, there's tilling:

          http://www.economist.com/node/119117...226b1e574f5cc1

          Like I wrote in that other thread about attitudes towards progress, somehow there's a mistrust of science in genetically modifying food, loading up animals with steroids, or using chemicals to boost growth.

          While there should be no compromise to health, by and large these are the concerns of the rich world - those of us who don't really have to worry about securing sufficient food for their families. We have the luxury of worrying about the ethics of our meat-production or the chemicals in our bread. Most of the world just needs more to eat.

          Barring a worldwide epidemic, increasing yields is the only way to feed the planet's growing population. There just isn't that much more arable land to be tapped. Biofuel subsidies, climate-change, water needs, etc. are all going to have an impact on agriculture as well.

          In early 2011, The Economist had a special report on feeding the 9 billion people that should be around by 2050. Here are the first and last articles from that special report

          http://www.economist.com/node/18200618

          http://www.economist.com/node/18200642
          Bolded statement is spot on. Organic vs. not organic (even if you assume any benefits more than taste) is a first world problem. A luxury good. Or, in other words, let's assume a worst case scenario: you have a higher chance of cancer in 20 years in return for more to eat. If you barely have the nourishment to live for 20 years anyway, of course you take that tradeoff.

          I'll be honest: I'm not convinced of the safety of supposedly "safe" levels of pesticides, just as I'm not convinced that aspartame is harmless. But I don't buy organic because of that sort of thing, as that also would have me worry about whether or not inadvertently inhaling the fumes from a Sharpie would cause lung cancer. I buy organic fruit (that's what we're talking about in my case) because they are invariably less bruised and better tasting at my local market. They are also invariably more expensive.

          I still don't get the organic processed foods thing. Seriously, that exists?
          Awesomeness now has a name. Let me introduce myself.

          Comment

          Working...
          X