Are organic food a rip off?

Dreamer

Yes, organic is rip off. Worse its often mixed in with quackery. Diet cults that make more money selling organic foods. GMOs which are always non-organic might be able to help slow climate change.

https://quackwatch.org/related/organic/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-word-organic-has-been-hijacked/

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

Yes, organic is rip off. Worse its often mixed in with quackery. Diet cults that make more money selling organic foods. GMOs which are always non-organic might be able to help slow climate change.

https://quackwatch.org/related/organic/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-word-organic-has-been-hijacked/

OMG.  We agree.  I don't know if organics are 'quackery', but if you are struggling to be able to buy food, then something being 'organic' is a luxury you probably can't afford.  GMOs get a bad rap, but have proven to be safe and help to address the issue of global food insecurity.  

maxx

Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious? - Mayo Clinic @Dreamer

Factfinder

@Dreamer

Wow. Yes I actually agree with you. All one needs is to go to the grocery store and know organics is a rip off. Exploiting naturalist and trendy concerns. I mean who would buy a rotting bunch of bananas labeled "organic" when a beautiful product is right next to it for a third cheaper?  

Dreamer

@maxx

Mayo clinic is too credulous. They believe in acupuncture.

Acupuncture is a theatrical placebo. The nocebo effect cancels out at least some of the benefits. Needles can cause infection. sCAM (complementary and alternative medicine) tends to infiltrate law and academia. A high correlation between quacks and anti-vaxx exists. Finally, worst of all can lead to delay of treatment a stitch in time saves nine.

maxx

Im not sure if you actually read the link. However,  all it states is the difference between organic and non organic.  Organic is just a more natural way to farm, and it is better for the crops and the environment.  Buying organic is no more a rip off than buying a brand name product instead of the cheaper version when they both have the same ingredients.  @Dreamer

Dreamer

@maxx

I read somewhere, can't find link now generic can be better often 2nd or third generation drugs that are a vast improvement over the first which is the brand name. I did read the mayoclinic link over a week ago, and wasn't impressed.

maxx

regardless, organic uses no pesticides, , it is better for the soil, and the crops. It is hardly a rip off to buy organic. I can do with out the pesticides thank you. Pesticides just dont stay on the skin, but work their way into the crops.. Perhaps not enough to cause serious health concerns, at least in the short term; however... A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health? - PMC (nih.gov)  @Dreamer

Factfinder

maxx said:

regardless, organic uses no pesticides, , it is better for the soil, and the crops. It is hardly a rip off to buy organic. I can do with out the pesticides thank you. Pesticides just dont stay on the skin, but work their way into the crops.. Perhaps not enough to cause serious health concerns, at least in the short term; however... A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health? - PMC (nih.gov)  @Dreamer

Thanks for the link. You do provide good links. 

I get the idea of consuming poisons is not appealing. That is why the pesticide industry is seeking more natural solutions for controlling pests, albeit more advances are needed, I agree. But when I go to the produce department of any major food chain where I live, the organics look half rotten, at the very least unappealing. And they cost significantly more. There is not much shelf life with organics and when an industry is trying to feed 100's of millions of people there has to be some shelf life. Not only for the market to sell the goods, but for the consumer to be able to store them as well. 

Dreamer

@maxx

Organic uses pesticides.

maxx

Not necessarily.  However,  like the topic asks, is it a rip off? No. I explainedas to why and you have not, in return,  shown me as why it is a rip off. Do you even know what the usda guidelines are for a product to be considered organic? There is no sense for me to provide another link. For that last one gave a very detailed in depth study. Perhaps it is your turn to give evidence as to why it is a rip off. @Dreamer

MayCaesar

Value of a product in the eyes of a person is not necessarily the same as its market value. For instance, I do not care about fashion whatsoever, so in my eyes a $15,000 bag is an insane rip-off - I could buy 150 solid bags lasting me for decades each for that amount - but people who do care about fashion and who have the money to spare might see such a bag as being reasonably priced.

Same with organic food. There are few measurable benefits that it has over regular food, but the high price tag is caused by the image these products have. "I eat organic only" is something that conveys a certain message, a status. People who care about such things a lot might not mind paying the double for a similar food item just for the label and the image it conveys.

GiantMan

Organics are probably better for you, but they are more expensive.

maxx

Maybe.  However,  i dont  really believe tat those who buy organic go around telling everyone.  They buy it for their own reasons,  notbecause they want others to know or because of any image.@MayCaesar

Barnardot

@Dreamer @GiantMan @Maxx Organics are probably better for you, but they are more expensive.

There has been a lot of research done as to weather organic food is any better nutrition wise and the answer is that in the end there is not that much difference at all. If any thing GM foods are better for you because they can engineer different minerals and vitamins in and out of plants.

The thing is with orgasnic food is that there is no reel standards. If your going to be black and white about it all food is organic any way like derr. its not rock or ashes. 

So we take a look at these hippie lefty farmers who are all called Nigel. They put natural fertilizer like horse shite in the ground. But the thing is that it has to brake down into inorganic stuff before the plants can eat it and heaps of left over crap gets washed in to the rivers causing pollution. On the other hand commercially grown carrots are intensively farmed in a small area and they are given minimum amounts of inorganic fertilizer which all goes in to the plants. And they can cultivate the crops heaps more efficiently than organic crops. 

So its no wonder why organic stuff is more expensive. Its because those hippies waste so much resources and time and space and buggerizing a round producing the stuff and at the same time polluting the planet.

maxx

This is why i like to buy local productswhen in season. It comes straight from the farm.  Here in my town there is not a lot of organic  produce, most of it are in can goods, which are just as processed as other goods. What i do is label read. I try to stay away fron artificial ingredients,  as well as emulsifiers and other chemicals.  @Factfinder

MayCaesar

maxx said:

Maybe.  However,  i dont  really believe tat those who buy organic go around telling everyone.  They buy it for their own reasons,  notbecause they want others to know or because of any image.@MayCaesar

It is not just about the image they project to others, but also to themselves. "I eat organic food" makes some people feel good; it is like a positive affirmation asserting who they are as a person. Much like when I say "I am a hot guy", I feel a certain way, and external actions supporting this claim are necessary to maintain this image.

I am different, in that I am a technological enthusiast, so to me what is cool is everything that is artificial/synthetic. Back when the term "GMO" was only emerging and various food products was labelled "GMO", I felt great about buying them, and part of it was its alignment with my values.

I think that everyone has a need to maintain and reassert their identity in various ways, and "organic food" is one of the outlets for that.

maxx

I dont think it is as much as an image, or the desire to think you are better than others as it is just an aspect of their personality.  I know people who constantly wear camouflage,  not because they enjoy the look, but it reflects who they are
 I buy local farm products,  not necessarily to support the farmers,  or because i like the image. But because i simply condider it better for me. @MayCaesar

Barnardot

@maxx ; I buy local farm products,  not necessarily to support the farmers,  or because i like the image. But because i simply condider it better for me.

So is it better for you to by a ton of garlic from local farm produce and then eat it all so it stops you getting cancer and heals your wounds?

MayCaesar

maxx said:

I dont think it is as much as an image, or the desire to think you are better than others as it is just an aspect of their personality.  I know people who constantly wear camouflage,  not because they enjoy the look, but it reflects who they are
 I buy local farm products,  not necessarily to support the farmers,  or because i like the image. But because i simply condider it better for me. @MayCaesar

Something I agree with Jordan Peterson on (very few things these days) is that it is very hard to know why you do what you do. We all have rational justifications of our behaviors, but they are almost always driven by our emotions and desires that we are afraid to admit we have. "Why did you marry me?" - "Because of your personality, etc. etc. etc." - this is what we say and hope that we mean it, but we will not want to add - "And also because being around you made me feel like such a baller for getting a woman like you" - and will even lie to ourselves that it was not a part of it, when it was.

You think that you buy these products because you consider them better for you... But I doubt that that is all there is.

maxx

I dont consider myself having an emotional attachment in the foofs i buy. A person can justify their actions in many different ways. But just because one prefers quality over something. It doesn't mean that there is an underlying psychological issue one is not aware of. @MayCaesar

Dreamer

Organic foods are bad for the environment. Go GMO save the planet.

"When farmers use these herbicide-tolerant crops they do not need to till the soil, which they normally do to get rid of weeds. This no-till planting helps to maintain soil health and lower fuel and labor use. Taken together, studies have shown positive economic and environmental impacts."

https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/how-gmo-crops-impact-our-world

Barnardot

@Dreamer ;Organic foods are bad for the environment. Go GMO save the planet.

Im totally with you 100% on that one all the way. The dwezells of this world who support organic is better coz its natural and wow Im a hippie and dont think to much beyond the length of my water pipe just dont want to get it. Those scientists are saving the world from starvation by making better crops and all those dwezells think about is there paranoia about big boy corporations taking over the world and controlling them. Well I say just suck it up dwezells because your totally dum attitude just dont cut the mustard nower days.

Dreamer

I am totally okay if people want more sustainable farming with less environmental damage to mitigate climate change. The main problem is the term organic is vague probably deliberately as a marketing gimmick, as Barnardot states in the previous comment. Too often big organic wellness industry fear mongers against GMOs and gene editing that help feed the world and save the planet.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/food-technology-gene-editing

"Misinformation on the subject is harmful. People who would otherwise be fed are starved, being deprived of food being destroyed just because it is GMF.[127][128][129] Destroying otherwise edible food when there are starving people is morally questionable, at best."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#GMF_impact_on_health

The below article doesn't mention organic specifically, but shows the harms of the wellness industry. They also mention this is just the tip of the iceberg, I am fairly certain t hey would agree that organic fits in the wellness industry. I see organic foods as a form of patriarchy shaming females for their bodies in order to up-sell them. Making working moms stretched to the limit spend their last dollar on overpriced food. Fearmongering including chem-trails and anti-fluoride. I am very passionate about this subject Maxx and I am not letting it go. 

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/taking-on-the-wellness-industry/

Feminism rules organic drools.

Phite

@Dreamer

Were GMO foods tested for safety?

Dreamer

Phite As per rationalwiki link "The scientific consensus says that there are no generic health risks common for all GMFs"

Phite

@Dreamer

Do you agree that "consensus" may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research?

jack

@Dreamer

Hello Dreamer:

If one could count on what the label says, organic food IS worth it..  But, one has NO idea if he's being lied to or not..  Therefore, it's not a good deal.

excon

maxx

wow, i did not think this post was about garlic. you are one of those individuals who refuse to accept science links aren't you.  @Barnardot ;Revealing the Therapeutic Uses of Garlic (Allium sativum) and Its Potential for Drug Discovery - PMC (nih.gov)

MichaelV

Argument Topic: Organic food is not a scam

@Dreamer I get that you fell like organic food is a scam because of the high prices and the fact that GMO's are more climate friendly but I would have to disagree on the part were you claim it to be a scam because, Prices for Organic foods are relative to where you stay, in America due to the highly nutrient value, limited supply and high demand for Organic food prices are high but in my country Zimbabwe were Organic Food is of surplus, GMO are more expensive as compared to Organic food and are frowned upon by locals due to the unhealthy ingredients, also research suggest that allot of GMO foods are produced through green houses which are a major factor in CO2 emissions globally, I WOULD ALWAYS SUGGEST SOMEONE TO BUY ORGANIC REGARDLESS OF THE PRICE BECAUSE OFTHE HEALTH BENEFITS, it is worth the price

MayCaesar

maxx said:

I dont consider myself having an emotional attachment in the foofs i buy. A person can justify their actions in many different ways. But just because one prefers quality over something. It doesn't mean that there is an underlying psychological issue one is not aware of. @MayCaesar

I suspect that there are always underlying psychological factors we are not aware of. The most honest response to most questions of the kind "Why do you do X?" would be, "I do not know, but consciously I am aware of reasons A and B I do it". You can dig deeper and deeper and never get to the bottom of it.

maxx

well, if you wish to go that route, then all of our decisions are made a nano second before we are aware of them; because it is our neurons firing that produces the decisions. @MayCaesar

Dreamer

@MichaelV

"There’s no evidence that organic food is more nutritious or safer or better for health." Harriet Hall

I already linked to quack health claims in my first comment. Here's another link from skepchick:

https://skepchick.org/2015/07/john-roulac-anti-gmo-leader-master-manipulator/

Notice the combination of fear mongering and misinformation about GMO's while promoting organic. I hate it when big industry uses grift to steal from the poor. Big organic are robber barons.

As for specific countries it may be cheaper in Zimbabwe. I would not know the price in every country. Yet, in the countries I've seen organic is drastically more expensive. 

Phite

Dreamer said:

@MichaelV

Notice the combination of fear mongering and misinformation about GMO's

Do you agree that "consensus" may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research?  Science is not done by consensus.

Barnardot

@Dreamer @Phite ;Were GMO foods tested for safety?

Yes they were and are under strict laboratory conditions. 

Were the organic foods which were crawling with thousands of harm full bacterial and insects which were delivered to the village market in dirty hay carts by hippy dwezels sucking on a Puff Daddy tested safely? I bet my back side buck they werent. Like Hay man heres your tomatoes and lettuces and like oh lets just shoo away them fleas and wipe off that organic poo fertilizer. And like hay man lifes good and oh I forgot what to say next and um ha ha ha. 

Phite

Barnardot said:

@Dreamer @Phite ;Were GMO foods tested for safety?

Yes they were and are under strict laboratory conditions.

Could you provide a link to information as to how they were tested?  You sound like you know a lot about it.

Dreamer

@Phite

I think the real question is how much does RCT (randomized controlled trials) cost. Yes, huge RTCs would give us a better indicator of how safe GMF (genetically modified foods) are. Yet, in everything there is at least a minimal amount of risk.

"Arguments of this nature are invalid, as any given technology cannot be proven to be safe in every possible imagined circumstance."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#GMF_impact_on_health

 Ever hear of a product randomly exploding? Hoverboards, Firestone tires, etc. Nobody would guess this, I'd more worried about every day products. At some point we get into impossible expectations territory.

"In most cases, a hoverboard explodes because it comes equipped with a faulty battery."

https://www.popsci.com/what-are-hoverboards-and-why-do-they-explode/

Phite

Error

Phite

@Dreamer

Here is a study found in the International Journal of Biological Sciences. It is Titled: A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Here is their conclusion:

Patho-physiological profiles are unique for each GM crop/food, underlining the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators. It is not possible to make comments concerning any general, similar subchronic toxic effect for all GM foods. However, in the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown. Furthermore, any side effect linked to the GM event will be unique in each case as the site of transgene insertion and the spectrum of genome wide mutations will differ between the three modified maize types. In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.
　
http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Dreamer

@Phite

There simply isn't enough time to delve deep into every issue. There is plenty of bias people promoting saunas and they don't work. The list of quackery is long and ever expanding, there's no way I can debunk every argument.

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/how-to-and-not-to-boost-your-immune

Phite

No one is asking you to delve deep into every issue.  You're only being asked to address one issue here.  You've failed.

The important thing is that you understand that you have no argument against the facts.  Your failure to respond confirms it . . .

Dreamer

@Phite

Just because I don't have the time to thoroughly read and debunk everyone of your arguments doesn't mean a win for you. That would be a proof by verbosity and on the spot fallacy.

You can see plenty of examples on this website of various conspiracy theorists and others being completely wrong, but still arguing endlessly anyways.

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Phite

Just because I don't have the time to thoroughly read and debunk everyone of your arguments doesn't mean a win for you. That would be a proof by verbosity and on the spot fallacy.

You can see plenty of examples on this website of various conspiracy theorists and others being completely wrong, but still arguing endlessly anyways.

You're not listening.  You're not being asked to debunk every one of my arguments.

Just this one:

 
Patho-physiological profiles are unique for each GM crop/food, underlining the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators. It is not possible to make comments concerning any general, similar subchronic toxic effect for all GM foods. However, in the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown. Furthermore, any side effect linked to the GM event will be unique in each case as the site of transgene insertion and the spectrum of genome wide mutations will differ between the three modified maize types. In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.
　
http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data." 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What happened here is that I offered something for you to debunk, and you failed to debunk it.  You're the only one here who doesn't understand what that means about your position.