"Discover Cooking, Discuss Life."

Go Back   Discuss Cooking - Cooking Forums > General Cooking Information > Health, Nutrition and Special Diets
Click Here to Login
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-30-2009, 11:18 AM   #11
Certified Pretend Chef
Andy M.'s Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 43,593
Originally Posted by Arky View Post
It's not worth arguing about. There are skeptics, and there are people who believe everything they read.

I never said I believed the article. I was just intrigued by your attack on the scientists.

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -Carl Sagan
Andy M. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 11:19 AM   #12
Master Chef
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Culpeper, VA
Posts: 5,803
No scientist or "expert" will EVER convince me that the fruits & vegetables I grow organically myself (or buy) that have been grown without exposure to chemical fertilizers or pesticides aren't better for me than those commercially produced WITH chemical pesticides & fertilizers.

While it's true that the BASIC nutrition of the item probably hasn't changed much (except, of course, for my own garden items which don't have to be picked early & shipped hundreds of miles during which time nutritional value drops), I - & MANY others - have absolutely NO desire to ingest chemical fertilizers & pesticides that are present in non-organic produce. Has nothing much to do with nutritional difference; a heckuva lot to do with toxicity/poison.

BreezyCooking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 11:34 AM   #13
Master Chef
Constance's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Illiniois
Posts: 8,175
There is absolutely no difference between chemical fertilizers and organic ones except that the organic ones break down and improve the texture of your soil. The both have the same chemicals. Nitrogen is nitrogen, wherever it comes from.
As for pesticides...I don't like to use them unless absolutely necessary, but without them, a lot of the world would go hungry and there would be a lot more disease (malaria, etc.)
Now that scientists are developing new hybrids that are resistant to disease and certain insects (such as the corn ear worm), perhaps the need for pesticides will someday be eliminated.
We get by with a little help from our friends
Constance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 11:45 AM   #14
Mr. Greenjeans
bigdaddy3k's Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago Area
Posts: 1,741
The argument of organic vs non-organic is akin to arguing religion or politics. Either side can argue until they are blue in the face and they will never convert someone over to the other side. Why bring it up here?

Sounds like someone wants a debate. True debates can only take place face to face as text can be misinterpreted by the reader. Arguments however, thrive in text form as your own anger and attitude color what you read and lend to your feelings of defensiveness.
No matter how many Bibles he swears on, when a dog tells you he's a vegetarian, he's lying.
bigdaddy3k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 11:57 AM   #15
Sous Chef
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 605
Originally Posted by Arky View Post
The whole point to buying/using organic is NOT the food/nutritional quality as much as the absence of applied chemicals through artificial fertilizers and herbicides and pesticides!!!

These idiots that performed this study are definitely looking at organic health from the wrong angle, and are probably being paid by the non-organic farmer community (UK government or not) - you know, the ones that add poisons to our food for the sake of money!
You stated in a later post that there are skeptics and there are those who believe anything.

Let me add another group to that false dichotomy: There are those who impugn without evidence and solely on preconceived notions.
suzyQ3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 12:02 PM   #16
Head Chef
GrillingFool's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: usa
Posts: 2,223
It is nice that we can afford, as a society, to have the option of "organic" produce.
If it weren't for chemical fertilizers and pesticides... we wouldn't be able to have
the choice.
IMHO of course... no biased researchers contributed to this statement of opinion.

(And I have a wife researcher, who doesn't yet have a Nobel Prize on her wall, who
probably has more morals and ethics concerning her work than...well, a rocket scientist, LOL)

GrillingFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 12:13 PM   #17
Head Chef
Scotch's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: California
Posts: 1,041
Originally Posted by Arky View Post
On the UPI (United Press International) web site, the science news dept. has TONS of stories such as:

MAYWOOD, Ill., March 3 (UPI) -- U.S. scientists discovered that researchers have been focusing on the wrong toxin in fighting the potentially deadly superbug Clostridium difficile....

Enough said about researchers.
I don't care what you did for a living, that is one of the most illogical conclusions I've encountered in some time.
Scotch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 01:42 PM   #18
Mr. Greenjeans
bigdaddy3k's Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago Area
Posts: 1,741
Kids, don't make me come up there! It will be no TV for a week!

Now enough arguing. It is not serving any purpose. Many a thing was said in haste and regretted at leasure. The "all researchers and no researchers" argument is as useless as "Always" and "Never". Nothing is EVER always and the only place "Never" applies is in this sentence... There is NEVER an "Always".

I was nicer in a previous post. Don't make me get the belt.
No matter how many Bibles he swears on, when a dog tells you he's a vegetarian, he's lying.
bigdaddy3k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 02:27 PM   #19
Senior Cook
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Beautiful Brooklyn NY
Posts: 325
I went to the link to Sky News and could not find any article
concerning organic/non-organic foods.
Can you please give us the reference?

I do not use organic foods - I think if the only food in the world was
organically produced 1/2 the worlds population would starve to death - you simply can't get the same yield using organic methods.
I think organic foods are another example of elitist and upper class
snobbery - like there are wine snobs, coffee snobs etc. etc.
anything that does not kill me makes me stronger
mike in brooklyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 03:06 PM   #20
Assistant Cook
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 7
I think it's a matter of sustainable agriculture. Monoculture, as practiced by Big Agriculture, is not - soil depletion, etc. And then there's the dwindling gene pool. How many species of apples alone have been lost in the past hundred years? Think about the perfect looking but tasteless tomatoes we can buy in any grocery store. Why are they there?

This is a big issue.

And actually, organic methods can, and often do, yield as much as nonorganic methods. But they're generally not as profitable in big ventures.

Hondo is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

» Discuss Cooking on Facebook

Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.