Antique Tractors Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,540 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A lady at the farmers market on Saturday asked me if we used "chemicals" on our maters. I knew she was referring to pesticides, but my immediate answer was "yes". She raised her eyebrows and looked as if I was guilty of food poisoning. I told her about some of the things we use. I went on to tell her that we haven't sprayed for pests in over a month and none on the maters all season, and that the pesticide bio-degrades quickly and was long gone because of the rain.
Then my devilish side kicked in. "But there have been all sorts of other chemicals on them", I said. Before she fainted, I told her that rain and the dew were chemicals. The rains falls through the air and brings down with it anything airborn. I also reminded her that insects have been crawling on them and doing their business, and that birds fly over the fields also producing chemicals.
These are "natural" chemicals as I reminded her, but chemicals none the less. I believe I made her think a bit, or at the very least confusion set in. I told her that we were not organic, we used chemical fertilizer, and the definition of organic keeps changing.
After all that she decided either our produce or the guy talking about it was harmless, and made a purchase.

THEN I FIND THIS TODAY:


..Organic food no healthier than non-organic: study
By Genevra Pittman | Reuters – 2 hours 59 minutes ago.........

....NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Organic produce and meat typically isn't any better for you than conventional varieties when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content, according to a new review of the evidence.

But organic options may live up to their billing of lowering exposure to pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, researchers from Stanford University and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System found.

"People choose to buy organic foods for many different reasons. One of them is perceived health benefits," said Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, who led the new study.

"Our patients, our families ask about, ‘Well, are there health reasons to choose organic food in terms of nutritional content or human health outcomes?'"

To try to answer that question, she and her colleagues reviewed over 200 studies that compared either the health of people who ate organic or conventional foods or, more commonly, nutrient and contaminant levels in the foods themselves.

Those included organic and non-organic fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, poultry, eggs and milk.

Many of the studies didn't specify their standards for what constituted "organic" food - which can cost as much as twice what conventional food costs - the researchers wrote Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to United States Department of Agriculture standards, organic farms have to avoid the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics. Organic livestock must also have access to pastures during grazing season.

Many conventional farms in the U.S., in contrast, use pesticides to ward off bugs and raise animals in crowded indoor conditions with antibiotics in their feed to promote growth and ward off disease. The Food and Drug Administration has been examining that type of antibiotic use and its contribution to drug-resistant disease in humans.

SAME VITAMINS

Smith-Spangler and her colleagues found there was no difference in the amount of vitamins in plant or animal products produced organically and conventionally - and the only nutrient difference was slightly more phosphorus in the organic products.

Organic milk and chicken may also contain more omega-3 fatty acids, they found - but that was based on only a few studies.

There were more significant differences by growing practice in the amount of pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in food.

More than one-third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared to seven percent of organic produce samples. And organic chicken and pork was 33 percent less likely to carry bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally-produced meat.

Smith-Spangler told Reuters Health it was uncommon for either organic or conventional foods to exceed the allowable limits for pesticides, so it's unclear whether a difference in residues would have an effect on health.

But Chensheng Lu, who studies environmental health and exposure at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, said that while the jury is still out on those effects, people should consider pesticide exposure in their grocery-shopping decisions.

"If I was a smart consumer, I would choose food that has no pesticides," Lu, who wasn't involved in the new study, told Reuters Health. "I think that's the best way to protect your health."

He said more research is necessary to fully explore the potential health and safety differences between organic and conventional foods, and that it's "premature" to conclude organic meat and produce isn't any healthier than non-organic versions.

"Right now I think it's all based on anecdotal evidence," Lu said.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/PShmuj Annals of Internal Medicine, online September 3, 2012.

...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
4,358 Posts
Good answer Jim. ;)
Is there a good reason that we're spending our tax money on something that is obvious?
If you grow two mater plants, they're going to produce the same material to make the fruit.
The difference being they will absorb what you put under them, man-made or natural fertilizer.
If you spray them with chemicals there will be an amount of residue, however small, if you don't there won't.
I always thought folks bought the "organic" items to avoid man made chemicals in their food.
If they think it's better nutrition then....... I guess I answered my question. :? ;)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,540 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
BigDaveinKY said:
Good answer Jim. ;)
Is there a good reason that we're spending our tax money on something that is obvious?
If you grow two mater plants, they're going to produce the same material to make the fruit.
The difference being they will absorb what you put under them, man-made or natural fertilizer.
If you spray them with chemicals there will be an amount of residue, however small, if you don't there won't.
I always thought folks bought the "organic" items to avoid man made chemicals in their food.
If they think it's better nutrition then....... I guess I answered my question. :? ;)

The key is those that prefer organic "think" it is better. It is all about marketing. Many folks "think" if something is more expensive, than it's better. Now ifn I could figure how to double our prices following this line of thought, we'd only have to grow half as much :!: :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
GMO crops are another big issue. Round up Ready is just a plant but some folks think they should be baned and some countries won't buy them. Man has altered plants for years in the way of hybrids to withstand weather , soil ,and location. I don't have any problem with conventional or GMO or organicly grown food crops, a choise is a good thing BUT the few that make the most noise think they are the only ones that are right.....mike
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,540 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Mike I have talked at length with folks that are scared to death of GMO varieties. When our gubbermint, mostly because of environmental reasons, keeps removing farmland from production, we gotta use newer techniques and varieties to affordably feed the world. They don't really know unless they have farmed or are linked to agribusiness in some way. It is taken for granted that food will always be at the grocery store.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top