Organic foods are no safer than conventional grown foods. 'Organic' is nothing but a scam to charge more for the same products. "People buy organic because they think it's better for the environment; it's not. It's safer; it's not. It tastes better; it doesn't. It's more nutritious; it isn't. And these are all misconceptions that have been deliberately promoted -- according to these authors -- by organic farmers and organic proponents despite the fact that scientific evidence doesn't support any of these claims." "The majority of Americans believe that organic foods are healthier than food grown using conventional methods. The majority of Americans are wrong. Two systematic reviews, one from Stanford University and the other by a team of researchers based out of the United Kingdom, turned up no evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or lead to better health-related outcomes for consumers." "In fact, organic farmers do use pesticides. The only difference is that they're "natural" instead of "synthetic." At face value, the labels make it sound like the products they describe are worlds apart, but they aren't. A pesticide, whether it's natural or not, is a chemical with the purpose of killing insects (or warding off animals, or destroying weeds, or mitigating any other kind of pest, as our watchful commenters have correctly pointed out). Sadly, however, "natural" pesticides aren't as effective, so organic farmers actually end up using more of them!"* "Moreover, we actually know less about the effects of "natural" pesticides. Conventional "synthetic" pesticides are highly regulated and have been for some time. We know that any remaining pesticide residues on both conventional and organic produce aren't harmful to consumers. But, writes agricultural technologist Steve Savage, "we still have no real data about the most likely pesticide residues that occur on organic crops and we are unlikely to get any." http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/the_biggest_myth_about_organic_farming.html
Actually, scientific evidence has proven: most organic food is more nutritious. most organic food tastes better. most organic food is safer for us because it has only 1% of the pesticide residue of conventionally grown. But you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know this. You can tell how nutritious it is, by how well it keeps, without rotting, at room temperature. Produce with good internal quality will keep a long time. That means it's nutritious and good for you. Food grown with chemical fertilizer will usually go bad quicker. that means it's not as nutritious. try it out for yourself. Most. (not all organic farms are the same, but most are better than the sprayed stuff)
Monsanyto paid $millions to trick you into believing that. You have no clue. Modern farming has replaced old nutritious varieties with newer higher yielding varieties that have less nutrition. That's how we consumers are getting cheated. We're eating tomatoes with no taste and no calcium. We're eating wheat that has more of the white stuff that makes us FAT FAT FAT, and less of the nutrition we need. We're getting screwed, but we love it. We think modern varieties make us rich by saving usmoney, but we're poorer than ever. Monsanto is richer than ever.
Go to any big city in USA. Let's say San Jose. And you will find organic food is BIG BUSINESS. The stores (where only the richest people shop) have a good selection of healthy organic food. it costs quite a bit more. Now go to the poorest neighborhoods in USA. "NO ORGANIC FOR YOU" the rich people pay $millions to brainwash the poor people into believing the world will starve without pesticides, but the rich people eat organic. From New York, to Miami, to Pasadena to San Jose, rich people are buying organic. Why don't the rich want to eat pesticides? Anyone know? Tell us.
It is much easier to fight and control diarrhea from organic food then guaranteed cancer from uncontrolled non-organic chemicals.
Small farmers throughout the world are going bankrupt not because they can't feed the world, but because they have no money. As smaller farmers go bankrupt, chemical pesticide companies and Monsanto make more money. Larger farmers take over the smaller farms, and suck out the nutrition out of the soil faster and faster. More and more we are eating Monsanto roundup in our food. When people eat Roundup in their food, they think they're saving money. But it's ALL A BIG LIE. We're getting screwed in the long term by GMOs, and full throttle chemical farming. But we like it. Some food is cheap, and that makes us happiest. DO YOU LIKE ROUNDUP IN YOUR FOOD? You're eating more and more of it.
Having lived my life around farming, in the US, in Europe, in India, and in Vietnam, having a father who was our county Agricultural extension agent, having observed the methods and uses of organic fertilizer, alleged organic pesticides, and organic farming methods, I can clearly and honestly tell you, "YOU OR RIGHT." This superpower guy THINKS he knows the ins and outs of farming, of all types, has been beat with the ignorant stick. Even a suggestion that organic foods are grown using all of the modes and methods he listed in his earlier post. Those may be the rules, but they don't as a whole use those rules. When he talks about the "bread basket of India" the Punjab, he oversteps his limited knowledge. The only real problem farmers have with pesticides is not what the put on their crops, it is their mishandling of the pesticides. THEY DON'T DIE OF CANCER FROM EATING THEIR OWN PRODUCE, they die from over handling and inadequate cleaning of the bodies with polluted water. The link he posted is a blog, an article giving the opinion of the writer. I trust US SCIENTISTS AND THEIR STUDIES MUCH MORE. I have no doubt that Punjabi are dying of cancer at a higher rate than here. Compared to us they are primitive people, not the big corporate farms, but the small farms started in the early 1950s, cleared from the lush jungle to give space to refugees from Pakistan, usually broken down into village areas with one tractor for the village, and with no history or experience farming. I would compare the large farms in quality with our experienced here in the US. The smaller ones, no. The big farms are controlled to a large extent by the government as is all fertilizer and pesticides. He has an agenda, like some of the ORGANIC FOOD, NO GMO FOOD, NO STANDARD GROWN FOOD is as good as organic food. It is a smokescreen. He is likely in the ORGANIC FOOD BUSINESS TOUTING HIS PROPAGANDA. As you, RPA, read what OUR SCIENTISTS know and publish, have put forth the facts that any reasonable person would accept over his hysterical description. He may even believe his own crap, who knows? I guess what it takes is someone with personal history with the issue to blow him out of the water, like our scientists real information. The claim Organic food is more nutritious, safer because of more natural pesticides, or more free of some harmful bacteria is absolute nonsense.
Bullcrap! Food borne disease is Is caused more from organic food than standard grown because is disease tends to be bacterial, the same bacteria in standard grown food, JUST A LOT MORE OF THE BACTERIA PER PRODUCE PER ACRE. It is amazing our few organic enthusiasts actually know about the food they propagandize as "better."
The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology Executive Summary The Society of Toxicology (SOT) is committed to protecting and enhancing human, animal, and environmental health through the sound application of the fundamental principles of the science of toxicology. It is with this goal in mind that the SOT defines here its current consensus position on the safety of foods produced through biotechnology (genetic engineering). These products are commonly termed genetically modified foods, but this is misleading, since conventional methods of microbial, crop, and animal improvement also produce genetic modifications and these are not addressed here. The available scientific evidence indicates that the potential adverse health effects arising from biotechnology-derived foods are not different in nature from those created by conventional breeding practices for plant, animal, or microbial enhancement, and are already familiar to toxicologists. It is therefore important to recognize that the food product itself, rather than the process through which it is made, should be the focus of attention in assessing safety. We support the use of the substantial equivalence concept as part of the safety assessment of biotechnology-derived foods. This process establishes whether the new plant or animal is significantly different from comparable, non-engineered plants or animals used to produce food that is generally considered to be safe for consumers. It provides critical guidance as to the nature of any increased health hazards in the new food. To establish substantial equivalence, extensive comparative studies of the chemical composition, nutritional quality, and levels of potentially toxic components, in both the engineered and conventional crop and animal, are conducted. Notable differences between the existing and new organism would require further evaluation to determine whether the engineered form presents a higher level of risk. Through this approach, the safety of current biotechnology-derived foods can be compared with that of their conventional counterparts, using established and accepted methods of analytical, nutritional, and toxicological research. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full
Food Safety implications Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).
GM foods are developed – and marketed – because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers and have concentrated on innovations that bring direct benefit to farmers (and the food industry generally). One of the objectives for developing plants based on GM organisms is to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides. Resistance against insects is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that inherently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high. Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields. Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used.
“Like it or not, genetically modified foods are almost impossible to avoid,” says Sheldon Krimsky, PhD, an adjunct professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts Medical School in Boston. Unless you eat only fresh, unprocessed foods that are marked as non-GMO or certified organic, you’re probably eating food that has been genetically modified. Is that a bad thing? Not according to every credible scientific experimentation ever performed. http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/truth-about-gmos
Your sources come from poor science. Your opinion about organic food is bull crap. The negative opinions about GMO food comes solely from ignorance without considering the thousands of studies proving the contrary
People have to learn to use their brains, instead of just swallow the Monsanto BS propaganda. Have you ever wondered why Russia and Hungary and dozens of other countries with intelligent smart scientists, and intelligent smart farmers have told Monsanto to shove their GMOs up their A$$, while USA and Brazil, and Canada and Australia (and some others) have told their own people, consumers, who just WANT their GMO food to be labeled, at least - to shove their concerns up their A$$? It's not because GMOs are good. It's because BIG BUSINESS loves GMOs, and USA Canada, Brazil Australia (and some others) have BIG BIG farmers who want to shove it down everyone elses throat. That's why some countries love GMOs and Hungary and other countries with less giant corporate farms hate GMOs. It has everything to do with money. GMOs are not good for people. GMOs are good for big business. ..
All we have to do just to fight bacteria and prevent contamination, like I said it is much easier then to fight cancer, caused by chemicals. Sure, even bacteria will not grow on the chemically poisoned food, that is why we need to give people option to have organic food.
Just go to some of the high quality health food stores in USA. No rich people are afraid of organic being contaminated. Stores like Whole Foods - good stuff. High prices. ..
The Organic Industry is not perfect. - some organic food from other countries like China or Mexico - is not really organic. (maybe 2% or less) - some organic food is overpriced rip-off. Like out of season organic blueberries for example, @ $6.00/lb. Once I bought some organic grapes without looking at the price and was shocked to pay $20.00 for a handful. - I bought some organic tomatoes at a farmers market - high priced - and half of them immediately rotted. Sometimes you buy something with 'organic' on the label, and it has chemical additives like MSG and others. - Food is only as nutritious as the soil it was grown on. Sometimes I bought scrubby tiny little organic lemons with no flavor, but a high price. They were probably grown on neglected trees somewhere on the side of a dry hill with poor soil. Not very good, but probably won't hurt anyone, except financially. Some small organic farms meticulously build their soil and do hand labor to grow the best food anywhere. Some big organic farms cheat a little, I've heard. Technically they shouldn't be spraying a lot, even if those sprays break down quickly and don't remain on the food. Also, some people complain that organic shouldn't come from thousands of miles away, because it's also bad for the environment. Sometimes organic food has extra packaging, which is bad for the environment too. But if it's certified organic , you can be mostly sure it was grown without chemical pesticides. You can be 98% sure it has less than 1% of the pesticide residue the other stuff has. So organic is gaining in popularity. Rich people aren't dumb. Most of the time, organic is decent quality, and good for you. .
Once in a while the media goes totally insane. Like the time CBC (Canada) said - Pesticides found in Canadian organic produce That headline, on TV and in newspapers all across Canada a few years ago, brainwashed the simpletons into believing a lie. It turns out, just one sample of organic apples was CONTAMINATED by being packed on the same packing line as some sprayed apples. It means all those sprayed apples are getting an extra dose of 'post harvest' fungicides. And the media tried to make organic apples look bad. almost all organic apples are perfectly fine. That's how disgusting the media is. Truly truly disgusting. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/pesticides-found-in-canadian-organic-produce-1.985584
First of all, think of this: The Green Revolution (India) has been a failure. It has led to reduced genetic diversity, increased vulnerability to pests, soil erosion, water shortages, reduced soil fertility, micronutrient deficiencies, soil contamination, reduced availability of nutritious food crops for the local population, the displacement of vast numbers of small farmers from their land, rural impoverishment and increased tensions and conflicts. The beneficiaries have been the agrochemical industry, large petrochemical companies, manufacturers of agricultural machinery, dam builders and large landowners. ^^^^^ If you can understand that, then you have a good idea what's good for the people in the long term, and what's disastrous for the people in the long term. Prosperous small farms are good for everyone. Gigantic chemical intensive farms are bad. Monsanto's special magical golden rice (sounds like a good children's book) is a hoax. but I'm not going to explain it in detail. Either you get the concept or you don't. http://livingheritage.org/green-revolution.htm.
Anti GMO complainers are the same people who are conspiracy theorist nuts, are the same as those who whine about every subject. Of course there are conspiracies, a minute % of events are such.
