GMO's would be so much better if corps aren't so fucking greedy. GMO's are good in Japan.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Everything Else »
- New 50 year study proves Organic food ‘ is not healthier!?
to be honest i dont give a flying fuck as long as its edible and it tastes good. except for tofu, that shit can go fuck it self.
Exactly.Red Forman wrote:
What kind of idiot could write this or even read this with a straight face? How one could suggest that food pumped with steroids and other crap is the same than one that is not.
It's probably just something like "We're losing money from people buying organic food. Let's make them buy this cheaper shit so we can make some money."
..and as others have said, people don't buy organic food because they think it's more nutritious...
Edit: It actually kind of sounds like an Onion article.
Last edited by DefCon-17 (2009-07-29 11:35:13)
um noKrappyappy wrote:
all the crap about organic food being 'more envionmentally friendly' is complete nonsense.
organic food is more expensive for a reason - without the use of modern fertilizer and pesticides, the yield is much lower, as much as 20-40%.
before the invention of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, people had been farming 'organically' for millenia. lots of people starved when the crops had a bad year.
if you wanted to feed the current world population through organic farming, the amount of land needed for farming would double. in addition to vegetation, you would have to sustain free range animals, which require vast areas of land to roam. that means taking a bulldozer to the forests.
alternately, organic farms would need to use genetically modified organisms which resist disease and have higher yields, without needing chemicals. but consumers, especially in europe, are paranoid about GMOs, and will not buy them.
none of this matters to hungry people living in places that are not europe and america. they could give two shits about organic farms or GMOs, they just want food, as much and as cheap as possible.
having said this, some organic foods do taste better [or just different], whether they have higher nutrients or not. i only drink organic milk, purely because it is far superior in taste to anything else i've tried. there will always be a niche market for premium food.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
This.ghettoperson wrote:
Seriously though, at least over here, organic food isn't thought of as somehow being richer in nutrients, simply that it's cleaner and damages the environment less.
Some is most isn't.. . Usually there isn't a difference with the thick skin fruits and veggies. However, the thin skin and leafy vegetable are more susceptible to being contaminated by fertilizers and pesticides.
http://tinypic.com/r/71nr4o/3
http://tinypic.com/r/71nr4o/3
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No-one has said it is, the absence of all the nasties is what counts.“There is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content"
Fuck Israel
Except that's not completely true either.Amdi Peter wrote:
This.ghettoperson wrote:
Seriously though, at least over here, organic food isn't thought of as somehow being richer in nutrients, simply that it's cleaner and damages the environment less.
Organic food is still grown with chemicals. It's just that the list of chemicals they're allowed to use is a little bit shorter. There is some controversy surrounding this list and many of the chemicals on it are now thought (by a sizeable proportion of the relevant scientific community) to be at least as damaging as some of the chemicals that aren't on it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for banning harmful fertilizers and suchlike. I'm also all for organic food. I just don't think it's done right and the system as it stands is so flawed that it makes very little difference if you buy organic or not - except to your wallet. I'd like to see much tighter restrictions on what counts as organic.
It is indeed. But it's also independent. Sounds weird, but that's how it works. Unlike most government departments they do not have to send their reports to ministers, they openly publish them.Red Forman wrote:
"The Food Standards Agency"ghettoperson wrote:
The BBC article I read about it said it was done by an independent organisation.
EDIT: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8174482.stm
That's govt yes?
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Everything Else »
- New 50 year study proves Organic food ‘ is not healthier!?