Real "organic" is a good thing: less pesticides, etc. But, what people tend to get through retail is a triumph of marketing! (Trust me, I know as the wife of a marketer). Examples: Basically, all "free-range" means is that they have access to sunlight and air. It doesn't mean they're frolicking freely in meadows.
Many corporate "organics" are commercially viable on a large scale because they are planted in small sections between plants that are sprayed heavily with pesticides. You can't convince me the wind doesn't redistribute some of that pesticide.
Milk. Not to be overly crude, but what human mothers eat changes the way their breast-milk tastes. It makes sense that what cows eat would change their milk. Sure, its still milk from a cow. But what else is in there? The same goes for steak (and chicken, fish, etc). They are what they eat, and that makes me a little nervous. Plus, lots of companies add tasteless "emulsifiers" that keep the milk texture thicker/creamier than water. Is that necessary?
Tomatoes/Peas. Companies can "improve" the taste of organic vegetables by making them sweeter by sprinkling sugar around the base of the plant. Plus, the new "engineered" tomatoes with the EXTRA long shelf-life have sparked allergic reactions in people I know. You can tell the difference in engineered and non-engineered by cutting out the core and feeling the tendrils that are left in the tomato. Engineered tendrils feel like thin salmon bones (kinda spiny).
Yeah, I'm for organic all right. Its just that I'm for REAL organic (in my head meaning little "improvement" by man). I'm beyond lucky that way: my Dad lives on a farm and thinks its his mission to make sure the grandchildren eat right :)
Oh, and SamsClub used to have nice salmon but I noticed within the last two months that they've started adding dye to make the salmon more "pink". That just leads me to wonder why.
Canned peas. I THOUGHT they were a vegetable. It turns out the brand my mother-in-law just adores is loaded with corn-syrup. No wonder she loves them!
Nuclear waste in fertilizer. Its possible I'm mis-remembering, but I think that there was a scandal in Oregon/Idaho/WashingtonState about four years ago finding that fertilizer companies receive a "reward" from the government for incorporating "acceptable" levels of radioactive waste into the fertilizer that farmer's spread on their fields. The theory was that this spread the radioactivity over a great enough area that it posed no threat to humans and eliminated the cost of an expensive dump. The problem was that the fertilizer companies weren't mixing the material enough so that some batches were extra "hot". Plus, it didn't take into account the acculation of radioactivity as farmers fertilized the field over long periods of time. THIS IS ENTIRELY LEGAL, EVEN ENCOURAGED. I just can't imagine this is a good idea. I talked to my Dad about it because I was concerned about my source of food. He told me he had suspected something odd for years and had his fertilizer mixed at a local company right in front of him with custom ingredients. That way, he could make sure nothing "funny" went into his fertilizer as well as adjusting for soil conditions. And, yes, thats not cheap.
Of course, I got paranoid early. We lived near OakRidge. Sure, they tell you nothings wrong. But, they check deer you hunt with Geiger-counters. And, there's the frog incident. Turns out that during heavy rains, cars going INTO the facilities were setting off the sensors at the gates. Eventually it was discovered that heavy rains lure frogs into giant puddles on the entry road. Cars squish the frogs, whose radioactive bodies stick to the tires and trip the Geiger-counters at the gates. Hmmm. Oh, yeah. Everything's ok. I trust the EPA/FDA. (And, no, its not that I think its a big conspiracy. I just think they may be raving incompetent about some things).
I think organic foods are all well and good for those who can afford them. The main problem being that most people in the world cannot(by which I am primarily referring to those outside the United States). The yields are far too low on organic crops. Again in the US and other indulstrial countries where food is plentiful and therefore fairly inexpensive it is all well and good for some people to choose an all organic path. It is not a viable option for many places, however, and certainly not one for feeding the world. We can't grow nearly enough food with orginic methods.
Organic foods, in my experience, taste better, last longer on the shelf or in the fridge, and are in every way more satisfying. They're more expensive, but I'd rather support local organic farmers than ADM. So I do.
I don't mind a market in "Organic" foodstuffs, as practiced by PeakTalk's family; an option, or a supplement. Nor do I "bash" it, per se.
What I do mind (and bash) is the mindset that wants to outlaw anything else, all too prevalent among those involved. I happen to like my milk homogenized and pasteurized, and choose to believe the research which shows the raw milk from cows given antibiotics or even hormones has no different levels of those things than "Organic" milk (the same cannot be stated about meat, alas). I've even bought Parmalat®, a milk treated to be shelf-stable at room temperature for a couple of months (or until opened, when it should be refirgerated unless used immediately), though not often or recently.
As to veggies/fruits, I mostly do not care. I do not eat tomatoes as such, only as soups or sauces, so do not give a hoot if the center is "spiny" (which is its breeding in any case, not whether pesticides were used during its growing season). And I'm allergic in varying measure to most greens. Possibly all, how green is celery, which I can eat? Not as much as peas, which cause a violent reaction. I wash my apples and potatoes just in case, so things like the Alar scare of a few years back bypass me.
Taste? Well yes, in some cases, but my own occasional trials find it generally overblown except for meats, and generally not very persuasive there. Prep counts for a lot, too: ask people who eat both regular and kosher beef. And who eats rare, or even pink-medium, pork? Have they never heard of trichinosis? Which reminds me that Nero Wolfe (OK, a fictional character, but his food preferences were based on those of the authors) used only pork from a farm that fed them on peanuts, acorns, and such - no table scraps or swill. For him, it was worth it; for me, it seems excessive.
I really liked the Peak article, since it was quite well-balanced. In other words, eat organic when you can.
I'd like to point out, however, that all things natural are NOT good. I do take issue with their point regarding trichinosis. In San Diego I saw several people with literal holes in their head from that disease. In Mexico, pigs aren't treated with antibiotics. I must assume that Mexican folks know how to cook their food, and they still get trichinosis.
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the only reason other livestock get antibiotics is to promote growth. That, however, promotes antibiotic resistance. There are scientists who believe that this contributes to antibiotic resistance in people, since your steak may be juicy, but it ain't sterile. Especially if it's juicy! I had a allergic reaction in college that was probably related to antibiotic-laden meat, as I have a severe penicillin allergy. So we eat wild game- but even there I worry about Kreutzfeld-Jacob variant, though we've had no cases among wild game in our state. There have, however, been MANY cases on game farms which is why I refuse to eat venison in a restaurant, since all their meat comes from soon-to-be-illegal game farms. Read "Deadly Feasts" and you will never eat meat again!
Also, I remember a tragic story a couple years ago about a mom who grew the family's vegetables and used incompletely composted manure. Several family members died from e. coli. Hmm, now those chemical fertilizers don't sound so bad.
Finally, I really get impatient with kneejerks reactions against engineered and irradiated foods. We'd need a lot less pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics if we grew more of these crops. And, sadly, it's the third world that really suffers as they are deprived of grains that could grow in soils where not much else does.
I get my veggies from the truck farms in the summer and Albertsons the rest of the year since around here "organic" means grown in the ground.
Sorry, typing too fast, it was John who was talking about trichinosis. The Peaktalk article asserted "People that enjoy healthy lifestyles and a balanced diet should by the way be sufficiently healthy to withstand all the potential diseases that Kris identified come with organic produce". Well, except for trichinosis, e.coli and KJD-variant, I guess.
I also don't advocate accepting genetically engineered products without serious governmental oversight. However, many people, unfortunately over-represented in the press, seem to envision a world similar to Little Shop of Horrors where we've all become Seymour. The truth is more complicated and not quite that scary.
Real "organic" is a good thing: less pesticides, etc. But, what people tend to get through retail is a triumph of marketing! (Trust me, I know as the wife of a marketer). Examples: Basically, all "free-range" means is that they have access to sunlight and air. It doesn't mean they're frolicking freely in meadows.
Many corporate "organics" are commercially viable on a large scale because they are planted in small sections between plants that are sprayed heavily with pesticides. You can't convince me the wind doesn't redistribute some of that pesticide.
Milk. Not to be overly crude, but what human mothers eat changes the way their breast-milk tastes. It makes sense that what cows eat would change their milk. Sure, its still milk from a cow. But what else is in there? The same goes for steak (and chicken, fish, etc). They are what they eat, and that makes me a little nervous. Plus, lots of companies add tasteless "emulsifiers" that keep the milk texture thicker/creamier than water. Is that necessary?
Tomatoes/Peas. Companies can "improve" the taste of organic vegetables by making them sweeter by sprinkling sugar around the base of the plant. Plus, the new "engineered" tomatoes with the EXTRA long shelf-life have sparked allergic reactions in people I know. You can tell the difference in engineered and non-engineered by cutting out the core and feeling the tendrils that are left in the tomato. Engineered tendrils feel like thin salmon bones (kinda spiny).
Yeah, I'm for organic all right. Its just that I'm for REAL organic (in my head meaning little "improvement" by man). I'm beyond lucky that way: my Dad lives on a farm and thinks its his mission to make sure the grandchildren eat right :)
Oh, and SamsClub used to have nice salmon but I noticed within the last two months that they've started adding dye to make the salmon more "pink". That just leads me to wonder why.
Canned peas. I THOUGHT they were a vegetable. It turns out the brand my mother-in-law just adores is loaded with corn-syrup. No wonder she loves them!
Nuclear waste in fertilizer. Its possible I'm mis-remembering, but I think that there was a scandal in Oregon/Idaho/WashingtonState about four years ago finding that fertilizer companies receive a "reward" from the government for incorporating "acceptable" levels of radioactive waste into the fertilizer that farmer's spread on their fields. The theory was that this spread the radioactivity over a great enough area that it posed no threat to humans and eliminated the cost of an expensive dump. The problem was that the fertilizer companies weren't mixing the material enough so that some batches were extra "hot". Plus, it didn't take into account the acculation of radioactivity as farmers fertilized the field over long periods of time. THIS IS ENTIRELY LEGAL, EVEN ENCOURAGED. I just can't imagine this is a good idea. I talked to my Dad about it because I was concerned about my source of food. He told me he had suspected something odd for years and had his fertilizer mixed at a local company right in front of him with custom ingredients. That way, he could make sure nothing "funny" went into his fertilizer as well as adjusting for soil conditions. And, yes, thats not cheap.
Of course, I got paranoid early. We lived near OakRidge. Sure, they tell you nothings wrong. But, they check deer you hunt with Geiger-counters. And, there's the frog incident. Turns out that during heavy rains, cars going INTO the facilities were setting off the sensors at the gates. Eventually it was discovered that heavy rains lure frogs into giant puddles on the entry road. Cars squish the frogs, whose radioactive bodies stick to the tires and trip the Geiger-counters at the gates. Hmmm. Oh, yeah. Everything's ok. I trust the EPA/FDA. (And, no, its not that I think its a big conspiracy. I just think they may be raving incompetent about some things).
I think organic foods are all well and good for those who can afford them. The main problem being that most people in the world cannot(by which I am primarily referring to those outside the United States). The yields are far too low on organic crops. Again in the US and other indulstrial countries where food is plentiful and therefore fairly inexpensive it is all well and good for some people to choose an all organic path. It is not a viable option for many places, however, and certainly not one for feeding the world. We can't grow nearly enough food with orginic methods.
Organic foods, in my experience, taste better, last longer on the shelf or in the fridge, and are in every way more satisfying. They're more expensive, but I'd rather support local organic farmers than ADM. So I do.
I don't mind a market in "Organic" foodstuffs, as practiced by PeakTalk's family; an option, or a supplement. Nor do I "bash" it, per se.
What I do mind (and bash) is the mindset that wants to outlaw anything else, all too prevalent among those involved. I happen to like my milk homogenized and pasteurized, and choose to believe the research which shows the raw milk from cows given antibiotics or even hormones has no different levels of those things than "Organic" milk (the same cannot be stated about meat, alas). I've even bought Parmalat®, a milk treated to be shelf-stable at room temperature for a couple of months (or until opened, when it should be refirgerated unless used immediately), though not often or recently.
As to veggies/fruits, I mostly do not care. I do not eat tomatoes as such, only as soups or sauces, so do not give a hoot if the center is "spiny" (which is its breeding in any case, not whether pesticides were used during its growing season). And I'm allergic in varying measure to most greens. Possibly all, how green is celery, which I can eat? Not as much as peas, which cause a violent reaction. I wash my apples and potatoes just in case, so things like the Alar scare of a few years back bypass me.
Taste? Well yes, in some cases, but my own occasional trials find it generally overblown except for meats, and generally not very persuasive there. Prep counts for a lot, too: ask people who eat both regular and kosher beef. And who eats rare, or even pink-medium, pork? Have they never heard of trichinosis? Which reminds me that Nero Wolfe (OK, a fictional character, but his food preferences were based on those of the authors) used only pork from a farm that fed them on peanuts, acorns, and such - no table scraps or swill. For him, it was worth it; for me, it seems excessive.
I really liked the Peak article, since it was quite well-balanced. In other words, eat organic when you can.
I'd like to point out, however, that all things natural are NOT good. I do take issue with their point regarding trichinosis. In San Diego I saw several people with literal holes in their head from that disease. In Mexico, pigs aren't treated with antibiotics. I must assume that Mexican folks know how to cook their food, and they still get trichinosis.
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the only reason other livestock get antibiotics is to promote growth. That, however, promotes antibiotic resistance. There are scientists who believe that this contributes to antibiotic resistance in people, since your steak may be juicy, but it ain't sterile. Especially if it's juicy! I had a allergic reaction in college that was probably related to antibiotic-laden meat, as I have a severe penicillin allergy. So we eat wild game- but even there I worry about Kreutzfeld-Jacob variant, though we've had no cases among wild game in our state. There have, however, been MANY cases on game farms which is why I refuse to eat venison in a restaurant, since all their meat comes from soon-to-be-illegal game farms. Read "Deadly Feasts" and you will never eat meat again!
Also, I remember a tragic story a couple years ago about a mom who grew the family's vegetables and used incompletely composted manure. Several family members died from e. coli. Hmm, now those chemical fertilizers don't sound so bad.
Finally, I really get impatient with kneejerks reactions against engineered and irradiated foods. We'd need a lot less pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics if we grew more of these crops. And, sadly, it's the third world that really suffers as they are deprived of grains that could grow in soils where not much else does.
I get my veggies from the truck farms in the summer and Albertsons the rest of the year since around here "organic" means grown in the ground.
Sorry, typing too fast, it was John who was talking about trichinosis. The Peaktalk article asserted "People that enjoy healthy lifestyles and a balanced diet should by the way be sufficiently healthy to withstand all the potential diseases that Kris identified come with organic produce". Well, except for trichinosis, e.coli and KJD-variant, I guess.
I also don't advocate accepting genetically engineered products without serious governmental oversight. However, many people, unfortunately over-represented in the press, seem to envision a world similar to Little Shop of Horrors where we've all become Seymour. The truth is more complicated and not quite that scary.