Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
That's the only reason I ever pay more for it. And usually I just can't afford it.
Organic garlic is 75p for three bulbs in Tesco with an individual chemical one 35p. Madness.
Though I'd be interested to see to what extent that's perception - I'd be interested to see if there'd been any double-blind taste tests to see if anyone could tell the difference.
most organic food comes from smaller farms and go through less processing therefore it is fresher.
It you have a garden grow some veg using organic and non-organic methods and try and taste the difference.
'The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.'
Everyone I know who buys organic does so for environmentally-motivated reasons.
It never ocurred to me that it might be healthier than the other stuff.
hippy brigade who berate people for not buying organic food and go on about how much better for you it is I think its worth pointing out this study only looked at nutritional content.
I don't think anyone believed an organic tomato has more vitamins than a pesticide ridden one but its certainly got a whole lot less potentially harmful chemicals in it.
Are they hamrful chemicals? Nobody knows.
The soil assocation would say not enough research has been done on whether pesticides cause long-term damage. Others would say research tends not to suggest it.
that indicate the use of pesticides harms local food chains.
but you're talking about one largely-banned pesticides, rather than all pesticides in general.
I can see how that case disturbed a lot of people (though critics would say the banning of DDT massively upped Malaria rates in the third world whilst simultaneous protecting middle-class Europeans from a small risk of cancer) but finding evidence one pesticide is dangerous in absolutely no way can be used as proof that pesticides in general are a bad thing.
Especially when the fact that we don't all starve or get plague because mice have eaten/shat on all the crops shows that if anything, pesticides is roundly a good thing (for us).
have a lower crop yield, so are potentially harmful to people.
but there is also the argument that heavy use of pesticides alters the chemical balance of soil so that in the short-term yield is increased at the expense of long-term yield being decimated
anyway, there are lots of arguments
To be honest, when your local supermarket is a Morrisons, you just buy whatever veg isn't mouldy-looking
It's pretty balls. It doesn't even taken into account the effects of pesticide, which is the whole point of organic food over non-organic food.
Also, its the same fucking food so why WOULD it be more nutritous? The point of buying organic food is that its better for the environment and doesn't kill birds and field mice and other cute little animals.
I've just had plenty of people tell me it is and long-suspected it to be bullshit.
I'd rather buy tasty local food than buy something just because it is organic.
Can anyone help?
I thought the point of organic food was that the companies that produce it get to make more money.
And the point of this report is to show that pesticides (or more specifically - food grown in the absolute standard pesticide saturated way) don't do shit (to us). Which is nice.
is the way that non-organic farming is referred to as normal or 'conventional' and that organic farming is deemed some kind of novelty, fad, phase or otherwise abnormal practice
Generally if you were buying food the default position would be non-organic and organic produce is specifically marked as such rather than vice-versa.
His reply was: "All my bacon is dry cure".
pesticides for roughly 100 years
I would argue that the use of pesticides is therefore the break with convention
Schoolboy error: The vast majority of our food is grown using pesticides. The organic farmers are therefore 'unconventional' in their methods.
but I still object to it
there must surely be a better form of demarcation between organic and non-organic farming practices - like maybe the one I just made which carries no hidden weighting of meaning in favour of one practice or the other
That post tastes better than an organically grown russet apple
But that doesn't change the fact that "organic" food IS seen as the defection from the "normal" method of production. All the report is doing is phrasing it as people understand it - you can criticise the understanding but that's hardly the people who wrote the report's fault.
Otherwise the sort of civilised society we have no is surely 'abnormal' given what a bunch of fucks we were for the previous 2000 years here.
but there's some very interesting stuff in the Guardian CIF debate on this.
Basically, as far as I remember, a lot of labelled organic food does actually use pesticides, like copper sulphate, but apparently they are OK because they are traditional, even though they are more toxic to humans and just as if not more harmful to the environment.
I don't think "organic" equates to unsprayed, so the environmental argument seems a bit off.
Maybe an organic fan can enlighten me.
is to keep the chemical balance of the countryside level, rather than artificially manipulating it with industrial chemicals. i'm not an expert on the subject, what i know i've picked up from my father who i never listened to closely too, but in general an organic farmer will try and suppress parasites with good crop rotation, but occasionally they will have to use an organic pesticide. these are produced using other plants or from processes that already occur in the enviroment - i think alcohol is an example. beyond that you can apply, in extreme situations, for limited use of certain pesticides if an entire crop is in danger. it all has to be approved by the soil association and they keep records so it's not something that could be done repeatedly.
this is all under the definition of the soil association by the way who, along with a european union research body, are of the opinion that oganic food is better for you.
personally i think so much of it is anecdotal as to be almost irrelvant. i do know that i instinctively trust small farmers to large agri-businesses, that petro-chemicals will someday run out, and before that day we should have engineered the strongest, most resilient crops we can do. i'm pro-gm but anti-petro-chem.
And that's all I care about. Taste.
I only smoke organic fags.
because organic certification requires higher welfare standards.
is 'pampered then killed' less reprehensible than 'tortured then killed'
is the condition the animals are kept in, killing an animal doesn't have that much moral weight imo. Depends what you think's immoral about killing though.
Supermarket veg wilts approximately after 173 seconds after being put in your fridge.
it's so much nicer. seriously.