I've recently been trying to eat mostly organic food for a healthier
diet. Here in NJ we have Wholefoods and health shoppe (i'm sure there
are many more, i just haven't found them out yet). Upon researching on
the internet, there seems to be many debates as to what is considered
and sold as organic at stores. Some claims have been made that the
USDA allows some pesticides to be used yet still be labled as organic.
I would just like to hear some opinions as to how much healthier the
food in these stores which claim to be organic really is. Is this a
hoax etc.? Any information regardling what to look for and what to
lookout for, or any valuable details is most appreciated. Thanks!

Yes, it can be a scam. There was a chap at the local farmers market with
a large banner over his stall proclaiming "ORGANIC" whilst others had seen
him at the local Ag Co-Op loading up on fertilizers and pesticides. Many of
the specifications drawn up to certify food organic were written by large
multinationals such that their chemical soaked crap would qualify as being
organic. The same stuff but at four times the price. What to look for in
organic food provider is honesty and credibility. Look for an organic farmer
you can build a relationship with. There is also the concept of Community
Based Agriculture. A family buys a share of a usuallly organic farmers
seasonal output and receives fresh produce on a weekly basis delivered to
their door. Everybody wins. Check around in your area to see if such a
program exists.

Farmer John

johny b wrote:
> I've recently been trying to eat mostly organic food for a healthier
> diet. Here in NJ we have Wholefoods and health shoppe (i'm sure
there
> are many more, i just haven't found them out yet). Upon researching
on
> the internet, there seems to be many debates as to what is considered
> and sold as organic at stores. Some claims have been made that the
> USDA allows some pesticides to be used yet still be labled as
organic.

<snip>

Next time in Whole Foods, ask the department manager what it is they're
selling and labeling as organic. Talk to them. He/she would be the
expert on their own merchandise. Great stores, btw.

Pierre

johny b wrote:
> I've recently been trying to eat mostly organic food for a healthier
> diet. Here in NJ we have Wholefoods and health shoppe (i'm sure
there
> are many more, i just haven't found them out yet). Upon researching
on
> the internet, there seems to be many debates as to what is considered
> and sold as organic at stores. Some claims have been made that the
> USDA allows some pesticides to be used yet still be labled as
organic.
> I would just like to hear some opinions as to how much healthier the
> food in these stores which claim to be organic really is. Is this a
> hoax etc.? Any information regardling what to look for and what to
> lookout for, or any valuable details is most appreciated.

Organic Foods is a belief system (a religion if you will), if you
believe it's organic then it is... but in the US there is no government
Standard. Even so-called organic farms use diesel tractors and other
petrol driven devices, Even home grown is not truely organic
regardless one uses no chemical fertilizers/insecticides. There is
still atmospheric contamination to consider and no farmland is immune
from tainted run off... in fact typical stupidmarket produce is closer
to true organic than anything one can produce in their home garden.
About the closest one can come to true organic foods is to go
*strictly* hydroponic. If you drive an automobile, use airplanes, ride
a bus, go on steamship cruises, or engage in using any petrol driven
devices and think Organic Foods is based in reality then you are a
hypocrite. But I'd not be too concerned with Organic (for those with
more dollars than brain cells), the human body is quite remarkable at
surviving. The only thing organic about the organic produce section is
that it's bull shit... expensive bull shit.

Sheldon

"johny b" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've recently been trying to eat mostly organic food for a healthier
> diet. Here in NJ we have Wholefoods and health shoppe (i'm sure there
> are many more, i just haven't found them out yet). Upon researching on
> the internet, there seems to be many debates as to what is considered
> and sold as organic at stores. Some claims have been made that the
> USDA allows some pesticides to be used yet still be labled as organic.
> I would just like to hear some opinions as to how much healthier the
> food in these stores which claim to be organic really is. Is this a
> hoax etc.? Any information regardling what to look for and what to
> lookout for, or any valuable details is most appreciated. Thanks!
>

To be labeled organic, food must meet certain FDA guidelines. See
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Q&A.html for some information. I do not know al
the details, but for example the land that a crop is grown on must not have
had pesticides or artificial fertilizers applied for a certain number of
years. Also, organic animal products must come from animals fed organic
feed. Producers have to be certified as "organic producers" by an
FDA-accredited agency to use the term organic. This does not mean some do
not cheat, but as is often the case you have to trust the label because what
choice do you have?

I would not get too excited about the health benefits of eating organic. The
worries that exposure to really small amounts of pesticides will cause
health porblems have been shown to be false. Organic production is
definitely good for the environment, though, and that alone is a good
reasoon to eat organic when possible.

Peter Aitken

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> johny b wrote:
>> I've recently been trying to eat mostly organic food for a healthier
>> diet. Here in NJ we have Wholefoods and health shoppe (i'm sure
> there
>> are many more, i just haven't found them out yet). Upon researching
> on
>> the internet, there seems to be many debates as to what is considered
>> and sold as organic at stores. Some claims have been made that the
>> USDA allows some pesticides to be used yet still be labled as
> organic.
>> I would just like to hear some opinions as to how much healthier the
>> food in these stores which claim to be organic really is. Is this a
>> hoax etc.? Any information regardling what to look for and what to
>> lookout for, or any valuable details is most appreciated.
>
> Organic Foods is a belief system (a religion if you will), if you
> believe it's organic then it is... but in the US there is no government
> Standard.

See http://tinyurl.com/3m22m for specifications for USDA organic
regulations. There are very specific rules for legally labeling food as
organic. It includes certification, permissible farming methods, and
testing. There are some pesticides permitted in organic agriculture.
However, they are of the type that have a very short half-life and are used
by a very small percentage of organic farmers. Organic agriculture isn't
just about the use of fertilizers, it's also about responsible use of the
land and water.

> If you drive an automobile, use airplanes, ride
> a bus, go on steamship cruises, or engage in using any petrol driven
> devices and think Organic Foods is based in reality then you are a
> hypocrite.

Not me, I admit that my car is not organic.

> But I'd not be too concerned with Organic (for those with
> more dollars than brain cells), the human body is quite remarkable at
> surviving.

You should read more about the high incidence of cancer among the American
population. Much of it is attributed to the use of pesticides, fertilizers,
growth hormones, steroids, and other chemicals used in the production of our
food.

> The only thing organic about the organic produce section is
> that it's bull shit... expensive bull shit.

When's the last time you shopped for organic food? Try visiting Whole Foods
or another natural food store and compare prices with what you buy in your
usual grocery store. You will be surprised to find that most items are
comparable in cost, and sometimes even lower.

shroomer wrote:
> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
[snip OP]
> > Organic Foods is a belief system (a religion if you will), if you
> > believe it's organic then it is... but in the US there is no
> > government Standard.
>
> See http://tinyurl.com/3m22m for specifications for USDA organic
> regulations. There are very specific rules for legally labeling food
> as organic. It includes certification, permissible farming methods,
> and testing. There are some pesticides permitted in organic
> agriculture. However, they are of the type that have a very short
> half-life and are used by a very small percentage of organic farmers.
> Organic agriculture isn't just about the use of fertilizers, it's
> also about responsible use of the land and water.

Sounds to me like you agree with Sheldon: "responsible use of the land
and water" is pretty much equivalent to "a belief system."
>
[snip]
> > But I'd not be too concerned with Organic (for those with
> > more dollars than brain cells), the human body is quite remarkable
> > at surviving.
>
> You should read more about the high incidence of cancer among the
> American population. Much of it is attributed to the use of
> pesticides,fertilizers, growth hormones, steroids, and other
> chemicals used in the production of our food.
>
"Attributed to" is pretty much my problem with this whole organics
industry, because nearly all the time the people doing the attributing
are not medical scientists but rather those who are selling the organic
stuff. It's mostly quasi-science, and pseudo-science, and just plain
marketing. The other important factor in the "high incidence" of
cancer--and it is important statistically--is the increased longevity
of the population.

[snip]

> Try visiting Whole Foods or another natural food store and
> compare prices with what you buy in your usual grocery store.
> You will be surprised to find that most items are comparable in
> cost, and sometimes even lower.

Surprised?! Hell, I'd be falling down astonished. I drop in at Whole
Foods about every six weeks (they have something I like for lunch if
that's when I drive by) and, while they have good sales on certain
things sometimes, just like all stores, the overall price levels are
not competitive with the chains or the asian or the mexican stores I go
to.

-aem

I guess I have to do more research as to the reliability and reputation
of "wholefoods" and "health shoppe". There does not seem to be a cut
and dry answer here. Also, I'm not sure I believe asking the manager
would be the most reliable source of info...they can lie just to sell
more food. It's doubtful he/she woudl admit to selling any food that
isn't organic but claims to be....or that the labeled organic products
do contain certain toxins etc.

It seems that even organic items are not 100% natural. My major
concern for going organic is to try and eliminate the intact of foods
that were grown with pesticides and artificial fertilizers. I
understand that the soil may not be 100% toxin free like it was 100
years or so ago, but I'm looking for stores which avoid adding in
unatural chemicals.

On 2 Mar 2005 09:53:11 -0800, "johny b" > wrote:

>I've recently been trying to eat mostly organic food for a healthier
>diet. Here in NJ we have Wholefoods and health shoppe (i'm sure there
>are many more, i just haven't found them out yet). Upon researching on
>the internet, there seems to be many debates as to what is considered
>and sold as organic at stores. Some claims have been made that the
>USDA allows some pesticides to be used yet still be labled as organic.
>I would just like to hear some opinions as to how much healthier the
>food in these stores which claim to be organic really is. Is this a
>hoax etc.? Any information regardling what to look for and what to
>lookout for, or any valuable details is most appreciated. Thanks!

Is there any reliable study that shows that "organic " food is any
healthier than non-organic food? I can't be;ieve that after nutrients
pass thru a plant or animal system the meat or vegetable produced is
different if the nutrients are "organic" BTW I taught biological
science for 28 years.

In article .com>,
"johny b" > wrote:

> I would just like to hear some opinions as to how much healthier the
> food in these stores which claim to be organic really is.

I don't know that the food is any more nutritious; it usually tastes
better.
--
-Barb, <www.jamlady.eboard.com> Sweet Potato Follies added 2/24/05.
"I read recipes the way I read science fiction: I get to the end and
say,'Well, that's not going to happen.'" - Comedian Rita Rudner,
performance at New York, New York, January 10, 2005.

aem wrote:

> Surprised?! Hell, I'd be falling down astonished. I drop in at Whole
> Foods about every six weeks (they have something I like for lunch if
> that's when I drive by) and, while they have good sales on certain
> things sometimes, just like all stores, the overall price levels are
> not competitive with the chains or the asian or the mexican stores I go
> to.


Yup there is a reason why Whole Foods commonly goes by the moniker "Whole
Paycheck"...

I've been to the one in my nabe about five times in the past coupla years,
my *total* purchases during that time haven't even totalled $30.00...

Fortunately I have access to great Asian and Mexican etc. places, the
produce is always fairly pristine. In my fave Asian place the produce in
season is grown in the area by small local truck farmers, you can't do
better than that unless you grow yer own or go to U - Pick places...

Whole Foods IIRC is some joint out of California, and the Whole Foods
"experience" reminds very well why I heartily loathe California - everything
is nice and shiny and presented beautifully...and at a very high price.
It's all so New Age - y and "organic" and touch - feely and so very
ultimately phony...and besides which I don't like how WF treats their
employess.

You can have the place, the dunderheads out there are welcome to patronise
the joint if they so wish.

--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote in message
et>...
>
>aem wrote:
>
>> Surprised?! Hell, I'd be falling down astonished. I drop in at Whole
>> Foods about every six weeks (they have something I like for lunch if
>> that's when I drive by) and, while they have good sales on certain
>> things sometimes, just like all stores, the overall price levels are
>> not competitive with the chains or the asian or the mexican stores I go
>> to.
>
>
>Yup there is a reason why Whole Foods commonly goes by the moniker "Whole
>Paycheck"...
>

because people like to buy gourmet food, and then complain about the price?

>I've been to the one in my nabe about five times in the past coupla years,
>my *total* purchases during that time haven't even totalled $30.00...
>
>Fortunately I have access to great Asian and Mexican etc. places, the
>produce is always fairly pristine. In my fave Asian place the produce in
>season is grown in the area by small local truck farmers, you can't do
>better than that unless you grow yer own or go to U - Pick places...
>
>Whole Foods IIRC is some joint out of California,

nope. texas.

and the Whole Foods
>"experience" reminds very well why I heartily loathe California -
everything
>is nice and shiny and presented beautifully...and at a very high price.
>It's all so New Age - y and "organic" and touch - feely and so very
>ultimately phony...and besides which I don't like how WF treats their
>employess.


?

>You can have the place, the dunderheads out there are welcome to patronise
>the joint if they so wish.
>
>--
>Best
>Greg
>
>
>

Saerah wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote in message
> >Whole Foods IIRC is some joint out of California,
>
> nope. texas.


Same diff...Texans are even more foney - bologna than
Kalifornians...stupider too, and that's *quite* an achievement.

--
Best
Greg

Allan Matthews wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2005 09:53:11 -0800, "johny b" >
wrote:
>
> >I've recently been trying to eat mostly organic food for a healthier
> >diet. Here in NJ we have Wholefoods and health shoppe (i'm sure
there
> >are many more, i just haven't found them out yet). Upon researching
on
> >the internet, there seems to be many debates as to what is
considered
> >and sold as organic at stores. Some claims have been made that the
> >USDA allows some pesticides to be used yet still be labled as
organic.
> >I would just like to hear some opinions as to how much healthier the
> >food in these stores which claim to be organic really is. Is this a
> >hoax etc.? Any information regardling what to look for and what to
> >lookout for, or any valuable details is most appreciated. Thanks!
>
> Is there any reliable study that shows that "organic " food is any
> healthier than non-organic food?

I don't know about healthier, but it's not any more healthful.

I can't believe that after nutrients
> pass thru a plant or animal system the meat or vegetable produced is
> different if the nutrients are "organic"

They're not... and organisms take what they need and no more. Any
chemical differences due to invironmental issues are so minute in the
scheme of things as to be negligible... so minute that relatively,
folks ingest/absorb a far greater quantity of "negative" elements
simply from living on this planet regardless of what they eat. Before
anyone rants organic they first need to divest themselves of all
household chemicals, including ordinary soaps, toothpastes, deodorants,
perfumes, etc... stop going to the hairdresser, nail salon, and
saloon... and do away with all petrochemiclas, inclusive of all
man-made fabrics and the entire interiours of automobiles. And forget
about ALL restaurant foods... you mean yer gonna buy organic beets and
very nest day engage in a big mac attack. Sheesh!

BTW I taught biological
> science for 28 years.

Perfect.

at Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:17:37 GMT in <1109791057.181000.19270
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, (Sheldon) wrote :

>
>johny b wrote:
>> I've recently been trying to eat mostly organic food for a healthier
>> diet. ...
>> I would just like to hear some opinions as to how much healthier the
>> food in these stores which claim to be organic really is.
>
>Organic Foods is a belief system (a religion if you will), if you
>believe it's organic then it is...

Slight nitpick: it would be choosing to buy and eat organic foods, or
alternatively choosing to attribute relevant differences to foods grown
using a certain method versus those grown using another method that would
be a belief system, not the foods themselves. Physical objects aren't
belief systems.

Now, absolutely, choosing organic is a belief system. Then again, so is
choosing conventional (i.e. choosing not to buy organic foods or choosing
to ignore whether a given food were organic or not). At some level all
choices we make reflect a belief system, a set of priorities we've chosen
to assign. There's no way to make these priorities "objective". At some
point every priority system depends on things that are taken as axiomatic:
presumed self-evident truths that are to be taken as a given. And axioms
aren't objective. What you take as a given is entirely a subjective choice.

It seems, broadly, that the beliefs organic consumers tend to subscribe to
are as follows (or at least include some of the below)

1. Taking on additional toxic load from synthetic pesticides and
fertilisers introduced through foods is an unacceptable level of risk.

2. Long-term sustainability of agricultural output is more important than
immediate crop yields or costs.

3. The level of research that is done before a given farming process be
approved for use needs to be exhaustive, or at least considerably more
extensive than what prevails in the industry today. Preferably there should
also be broad opportunity for public input.

4. Concerns over industrially intensive processes and practices used in the
conventional food production market, especially by larger businesses, are
too urgent to be dismissed lightly. Whether these concerns are true in fact
is another matter, but they cannot simply be ignored.

5. Knowing about what might have been done to produce a given
conventionally-grown food leaves a sufficiently bad taste in one's mouth
that even if the actual flavour is identical, it's not going to taste as
good as the organic subjectively.

Meanwhile the beliefs that the conventional consumers seem to subscribe to
generally include some or all of the following:

1. A lower market price for a given food item is a high priority.

2. Processes that improve end-consumer yield are too important to require
research into their consequences beyond a certain limit.

3. If no direct causal relationship can be established between an outcome
and a presumed contributor to the outcome, the most sensible response is to
behave assuming that the presumed contributor has minimal effect on the
outcome.

4. To prevent a short-term crisis from developing into a long-term issue,
most unforeseen problems in the food supply should be dealt with on a case-
by-case basis as they occur.

5. Whether a given farm, crop variety, process, market segment, or producer
segment survives is of little consequence provided the foods being supplied
don't change dramatically in quality or cost.

You can't prove or disprove any of these beliefs, on either side. Either
you accept the proposition or you don't - and that's very much a personal
choice.

I find it disappointing that both sides of the debate seem to rely mostly
on undermining the other side's credibility in order to advance their
argument. That's essentially reducing the debate to a legalistic courtroom
trial - using tactics appropriate to an attorney interviewing a hostile
witness. It assumes, a priori, an adversarial relationship, and that's what
you create - with no opportunity for cooperation, collaboration, discovery
of shared interests and goals, things that would explore the synergies
between each of the 2 methods of production and allow environmentally
unimpeachable progress in farming technology. As it is, there's no real
debate, only a stream of name-calling from both sides of the issue. It
clouds both the issues and the facts and leaves the ordinary consumer
confused with no way to get good information.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Gregory Morrow wrote in message ...
>
>Saerah wrote:
>
>> Gregory Morrow wrote in message
>> >Whole Foods IIRC is some joint out of California,
>>
>> nope. texas.
>
>
>Same diff...Texans are even more foney - bologna than
>Kalifornians...stupider too, and that's *quite* an achievement.
>

texans "stupider" than californians? LOL.

--
saerah

TANSTAAFL

CrzyBitch (3:25:06 AM): I'm a secret agent, and a princess
>--
>Best
>Greg
>
>
>

In article > ,
"Peter Aitken" > wrote:

> "johny b" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > I've recently been trying to eat mostly organic food for a healthier
> > diet. Here in NJ we have Wholefoods and health shoppe (i'm sure there
> > are many more, i just haven't found them out yet). Upon researching on
> > the internet, there seems to be many debates as to what is considered
> > and sold as organic at stores. Some claims have been made that the
> > USDA allows some pesticides to be used yet still be labled as organic.
> > I would just like to hear some opinions as to how much healthier the
> > food in these stores which claim to be organic really is. Is this a
> > hoax etc.? Any information regardling what to look for and what to
> > lookout for, or any valuable details is most appreciated. Thanks!
> >
>
> To be labeled organic, food must meet certain FDA guidelines. See
> http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Q&A.html for some information. I do not know al
> the details, but for example the land that a crop is grown on must not have
> had pesticides or artificial fertilizers applied for a certain number of
> years.

True. Sometimes you will see produce or meat labeled "transitional,"
meaning it is being grown organically during the three years that
the guidelines (actually, the FDA regs are the law for products
bearing its seal) require for moving from conventional production to
organic production.

> Also, organic animal products must come from animals fed organic
> feed. Producers have to be certified as "organic producers" by an
> FDA-accredited agency to use the term organic. This does not mean some do
> not cheat, but as is often the case you have to trust the label because what
> choice do you have?

Before the FDA law, there were (still are) various organizations
which independently labeled goods as organic. The farmer mentioned
in another post can post "ORGANIC" all over everything he sells, but
if he's the only one saying it, it ain't necessarily so. If the
State of Washington or Oregon Tilth labels something "organic," you
can be pretty sure it meets a uniform set of requirements imposed by
someone other than that farmer.

> I would not get too excited about the health benefits of eating organic. The
> worries that exposure to really small amounts of pesticides will cause
> health porblems have been shown to be false. Organic production is
> definitely good for the environment, though, and that alone is a good
> reasoon to eat organic when possible.
>
> Peter Aitken

Organic production _definitely_ is good for the environment.
Chemistry aside, it tends to keep farmland as farmland, giving
farmers an economically-viable option to selling out to developers.
Local farmers keep local implement dealers and supply houses going,
too. The land typically is farmed by people who are paid a living
wage for their work (and who spend it locally). Animals raised for
food are raised and slaughtered as humanely as possible.

Many organic farmers are aiding their own economic future by growing
crops that don't have to be propped up with massive amounts of
fertilizer or pesticides. In my co-op, you'll find local heirloom
tomatoes in August and September; locally-grown apples grafted into
varieties which resist blight, and in varieties you don't see in
most supermarkets; alternative whole grains; and other items which
are not being produced by the factory farms. It's hard to compete
with that kind of scale, so why try?

And I think the food just plain tastes better. When the farmer who
picked the apples from the tree drives them in for sale the
following day, I can expect a better apple than the one that's spent
a few weeks in the chiller between a thousand-mile truck trip and
the supermarket's distribution center. I think I get it, too.

sd

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> shroomer wrote:
>> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
> [snip OP]
>> > Organic Foods is a belief system (a religion if you will), if you
>> > believe it's organic then it is... but in the US there is no
>> > government Standard.
>>
>> See http://tinyurl.com/3m22m for specifications for USDA organic
>> regulations. There are very specific rules for legally labeling food
>> as organic. It includes certification, permissible farming methods,
>> and testing. There are some pesticides permitted in organic
>> agriculture. However, they are of the type that have a very short
>> half-life and are used by a very small percentage of organic farmers.
>> Organic agriculture isn't just about the use of fertilizers, it's
>> also about responsible use of the land and water.
>
> Sounds to me like you agree with Sheldon: "responsible use of the land
> and water" is pretty much equivalent to "a belief system."

Hardly. Organic farming reduces the amount of pesticides and fertilizers
going into the earth thus preserving the quality of water and soil. This has
far reaching effects in maintaining the balance of the ecosystem. Further,
it reduces the contaminants that eventually find their way into the food we
eat and the water that we drink, both directly and indirectly. This is not
a "belief system", but scientific facts.

> [snip]
>> > But I'd not be too concerned with Organic (for those with
>> > more dollars than brain cells), the human body is quite remarkable
>> > at surviving.
>>
>> You should read more about the high incidence of cancer among the
>> American population. Much of it is attributed to the use of
>> pesticides,fertilizers, growth hormones, steroids, and other
>> chemicals used in the production of our food.
>>
> "Attributed to" is pretty much my problem with this whole organics
> industry, because nearly all the time the people doing the attributing
> are not medical scientists but rather those who are selling the organic
> stuff. It's mostly quasi-science, and pseudo-science, and just plain
> marketing. The other important factor in the "high incidence" of
> cancer--and it is important statistically--is the increased longevity
> of the population.

Here's an article from WebMD (http://tinyurl.com/567ej) stating that organic
foods are higher in flavanoids which "play important roles in preventing
cancer and heart disease".

Another article from Medical News Today (http://tinyurl.com/4jgok) in the
form of a factsheet states, among other things, that "The most dangerous
chemicals used in farming such as organophosphates [pesticides] have been
linked with a range of conditions such as cancer, decreasing male fertility,
foetal abnormalities, chronic fatigue syndrome in children and Parkinson's
disease. 8,9 Pesticide residues have been ranked among the top three
environmental cancer risks by the American Government.", and "Consumers who
wish to minimise their dietary pesticide exposure can do so with confidence
by buying organically grown food" (Baker et al 2002).".

There you are, a couple of solid references from the medical community
resulting from a quick web search. I could give you more but you get the
idea. The benefits of organic agriculture to human health is real and
endorsed by an overwhelming number of scientists and doctors.

>> Try visiting Whole Foods or another natural food store and
>> compare prices with what you buy in your usual grocery store.
>> You will be surprised to find that most items are comparable in
>> cost, and sometimes even lower.
>
> Surprised?! Hell, I'd be falling down astonished. I drop in at Whole
> Foods about every six weeks (they have something I like for lunch if
> that's when I drive by) and, while they have good sales on certain
> things sometimes, just like all stores, the overall price levels are
> not competitive with the chains or the asian or the mexican stores I go
> to.

Where I live, most of the Asian and Mexican stores are in one area and not
convenient for many shoppers. My comparison was for chain grocery stores
found in most neighborhoods. Even within the grocery stores, organic foods
is not much more expensive than non-organic foods.

>Organic production _definitely_ is good for the environment.
>Chemistry aside, it tends to keep farmland as farmland, giving
>farmers an economically-viable option to selling out to developers.

No real correlation there. Any system of farming that makes the farmer
successful tends to keep the land out of development. Farmers are
successful if they produce crops cheaply that the public desires.
Organic production doesn't contribute much to that end.

Neil

shroomer wrote:
[snips]
> Here's an article from WebMD (http://tinyurl.com/567ej) stating that
> organic foods are higher in flavanoids which "play important roles
> in preventing cancer and heart disease".
>
Thanks for the links. If only we knew enough to be more specific than
"play important roles..." But it's a pretty well balanced article.
Here's another quote from it: "However, it's not at all clear that
organic foods are much better for you than other fruits and
vegetables. Carl J. Rosen, PhD, interim head of horticultural science
at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul, agrees with Francis that
nutritional value isn't the main reason many people find organic foods
attractive."

"I think it is to some degree naive to think organic foods are more
nutritious," Rosen tells WebMD. "Still, one might buy organic foods for
lots of reasons. One is pesticide residue. As for nutritional quality,
a lot of the produce that is sold in the supermarket is grown
hydroponically -- that means with no organic matter. If you compare the
nutritional quality of a tomato grown hydroponically to one grown
organically, there likely would be some differences, but you couldn't
say one is healthier than the other."

>From these two articles it appears that the consensus is that pesticide
residue is a primary concern, while fertilizers and food additives get
mixed reviews.
[snips]
>
> Where I live, ... Even within the grocery stores, organic foods
> [are] not much more expensive than non-organic foods.

You are fortunate, then. I wish that were the case here.

-aem

"Neil" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >Organic production _definitely_ is good for the environment.
>>Chemistry aside, it tends to keep farmland as farmland, giving
>>farmers an economically-viable option to selling out to developers.
>
> No real correlation there. Any system of farming that makes the farmer
> successful tends to keep the land out of development. Farmers are
> successful if they produce crops cheaply that the public desires.
> Organic production doesn't contribute much to that end.
>
> Neil
>

You are misunderstanding. "Good for the environment" does not just mean
limiting development. I agree that limiting development is good, but organic
farming's benefits are different. It means that fertilizer runoff is
lessened with a decrease in harmful effects to rivers and lakes. It means
that fewer harmless insects and other animals are killed by pesticides. It
means that farm workers are not poisoned by pesicide residues. It means that
harmful insects and bacteria do not develop resistant strains. It means
fewer phosphate and other mines to produce fertilizer, and less oil and
other resources used to produce pesticides. It often means that erosion and
soil loss is decreased.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> shroomer wrote:
> [snips]
>> Here's an article from WebMD (http://tinyurl.com/567ej) stating that
>> organic foods are higher in flavanoids which "play important roles
>> in preventing cancer and heart disease".
>>
> Thanks for the links. If only we knew enough to be more specific than
> "play important roles..." But it's a pretty well balanced article.

I'm sure you could find something more specific if you looked for it. There
really is an overwhelming amount of credible evidence that organic food is
better for the environment and less harmful to our bodies. It is not a
"belief system".

Something else I wanted to offer. I saw a Bill Moyers documentary several
years ago (wish I remembered the name of it). The thrust of it was how
harmful many chemical products are and the lengths the chemical industry
goes to hide it from the public. They showed dreadful footage of chemical
worker's physical deformities resulting from their exposure to chemical
products - even common household products. Awful stuff, but I digress. Part
of the program focused on chemicals used in agriculture and the effects on
people and the environment. Moyers grew up on a farm and was exposed to
several chemicals now banned or known to be carcinogenic. They tested his
blood and found something like 80 carcinogenic and more than 100 other known
harmful chemicals in his system, including DDT (which is banned here in the
U.S., but still in use in other countries to control mosquito populations
and resulting disease, etc.). It was really well worth watching.

> Here's another quote from it: "However, it's not at all clear that
> organic foods are much better for you than other fruits and
> vegetables. Carl J. Rosen, PhD, interim head of horticultural science
> at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul, agrees with Francis that
> nutritional value isn't the main reason many people find organic foods
> attractive."
>
> "I think it is to some degree naive to think organic foods are more
> nutritious," Rosen tells WebMD. "Still, one might buy organic foods for
> lots of reasons. One is pesticide residue. As for nutritional quality,
> a lot of the produce that is sold in the supermarket is grown
> hydroponically -- that means with no organic matter. If you compare the
> nutritional quality of a tomato grown hydroponically to one grown
> organically, there likely would be some differences, but you couldn't
> say one is healthier than the other."

Yeah, some people claim that organic food is more nutritious and more
flavorful. Now that I will grant you is B.S.

>>From these two articles it appears that the consensus is that pesticide
> residue is a primary concern, while fertilizers and food additives get
> mixed reviews.
> [snips]

I would argue that food additives are just as harmful to our bodies but that
is another subject. I will quickly say that the growth hormones, steroids,
antibiotics, flavor enhancers, and other things that are common in meat
products directly effects the health of people who consume them. Fertilizers
are harmful to the environment as it releases too much nitrogen into the
ecosystem. It changes the symbiotic relationship between trees and fungi
which effects nearly everything else in a forest. And it gets into water and
feeds algae which, in turn, depletes oxygen in the water. It's like dominos;
one thing disrupts another thing which disrupts another thing and so on.
Eventually it comes back to us.

I could go on and on about this stuff. The point of it is that things like
commonly used agri-chemcials cause a lot of havoc in the environment which
ultimately effects you and me in ways that are not obvious or expected. What
fuels it is the never ending quest of consumers to pay less for food while
farmers endeavor to maximize their profits. Chemicals are used to bring food
to market faster and cheaper with little regard for the consequences.

Even if organic foods cost a few percent more on the average, supporting it
benefits our health and the world we live in. And, no, I'm not connected to
the organic industry in any way! :^)

shroomer wrote:
> "aem" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > shroomer wrote:
> > [snips]
> >> Here's an article from WebMD (http://tinyurl.com/567ej) stating
that
> >> organic foods are higher in flavanoids which "play important roles
> >> in preventing cancer and heart disease".
> >>
> > Thanks for the links. If only we knew enough to be more specific
than
> > "play important roles..." But it's a pretty well balanced article.
>
> I'm sure you could find something more specific if you looked for it.
There
> really is an overwhelming amount of credible evidence that organic
food is
> better for the environment and less harmful to our bodies. It is not
a
> "belief system".
>
> Something else I wanted to offer. I saw a Bill Moyers documentary
several
> years ago (wish I remembered the name of it). The thrust of it was
how
> harmful many chemical products are and the lengths the chemical
industry
> goes to hide it from the public. They showed dreadful footage of
chemical
> worker's physical deformities resulting from their exposure to
chemical
> products - even common household products. Awful stuff, but I
digress. Part
> of the program focused on chemicals used in agriculture and the
effects on
> people and the environment. Moyers grew up on a farm and was exposed
to
> several chemicals now banned or known to be carcinogenic. They tested
his
> blood and found something like 80 carcinogenic and more than 100
other known
> harmful chemicals in his system, including DDT (which is banned here
in the
> U.S., but still in use in other countries to control mosquito
populations
> and resulting disease, etc.). It was really well worth watching.
>
> > Here's another quote from it: "However, it's not at all clear
that
> > organic foods are much better for you than other fruits and
> > vegetables. Carl J. Rosen, PhD, interim head of horticultural
science
> > at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul, agrees with Francis that
> > nutritional value isn't the main reason many people find organic
foods
> > attractive."
> >
> > "I think it is to some degree naive to think organic foods are more
> > nutritious," Rosen tells WebMD. "Still, one might buy organic foods
for
> > lots of reasons. One is pesticide residue. As for nutritional
quality,
> > a lot of the produce that is sold in the supermarket is grown
> > hydroponically -- that means with no organic matter. If you compare
the
> > nutritional quality of a tomato grown hydroponically to one grown
> > organically, there likely would be some differences, but you
couldn't
> > say one is healthier than the other."
>
> Yeah, some people claim that organic food is more nutritious and more

> flavorful. Now that I will grant you is B.S.
>

Hey there. I've certainly found most organinc food is both more
nutritious and more flavorful. Even "high times" magazine's cannabis
cup found organic buds to be better tasting! Studies have shown
organic foods have more minerals.

Cheers-

> >>From these two articles it appears that the consensus is that
pesticide
> > residue is a primary concern, while fertilizers and food additives
get
> > mixed reviews.
> > [snips]
>
> I would argue that food additives are just as harmful to our bodies
but that
> is another subject. I will quickly say that the growth hormones,
steroids,
> antibiotics, flavor enhancers, and other things that are common in
meat
> products directly effects the health of people who consume them.
Fertilizers
> are harmful to the environment as it releases too much nitrogen into
the
> ecosystem. It changes the symbiotic relationship between trees and
fungi
> which effects nearly everything else in a forest. And it gets into
water and
> feeds algae which, in turn, depletes oxygen in the water. It's like
dominos;
> one thing disrupts another thing which disrupts another thing and so
on.
> Eventually it comes back to us.
>
> I could go on and on about this stuff. The point of it is that things
like
> commonly used agri-chemcials cause a lot of havoc in the environment
which
> ultimately effects you and me in ways that are not obvious or
expected. What
> fuels it is the never ending quest of consumers to pay less for food
while
> farmers endeavor to maximize their profits. Chemicals are used to
bring food
> to market faster and cheaper with little regard for the consequences.
>
> Even if organic foods cost a few percent more on the average,
supporting it
> benefits our health and the world we live in. And, no, I'm not
connected to
> the organic industry in any way! :^)

Good points guys - cheers -

>organic farming's benefits are different. It means that fertilizer
runoff is
>lessened with a decrease in harmful effects to rivers and lakes. It
means
>that fewer harmless insects and other animals are killed by
pesticides. It
>means that farm workers are not poisoned by pesicide residues. It
means that
>harmful insects and bacteria do not develop resistant strains. It
means
>fewer phosphate and other mines to produce fertilizer, and less oil
and
>other resources used to produce pesticides. It often means that
erosion and
>soil loss is decreased.

The point about fertilizer run-off is completely immaterial; manure
run-off is as harmful to water quality and wildlife as synthetic
fertilizer run-off is; the question is, which can be applied most
efficiently, with less waste. And if you think farm workers are being
poisoned by pesticide residues, you have remedies under MSPA and OSHA
and our country's famously punative tort system to prove it under. You
don't mention the environmental expense which the creators of organic
fertilizers incur; it takes pasture and fodder to raise a cow. The
points about erosion and soil-loss are red herrings; "no-till" is now a
mainstream technique, but typically the larger operators have the
capital to do a better job of it.

Neil

Neil wrote:
> >organic farming's benefits are different. It means that fertilizer
> runoff is
> >lessened with a decrease in harmful effects to rivers and lakes. It
> means
> >that fewer harmless insects and other animals are killed by
> pesticides. It
> >means that farm workers are not poisoned by pesicide residues. It
> means that
> >harmful insects and bacteria do not develop resistant strains. It
> means
> >fewer phosphate and other mines to produce fertilizer, and less oil
> and
> >other resources used to produce pesticides. It often means that
> erosion and
> >soil loss is decreased.
>
> The point about fertilizer run-off is completely immaterial; manure
> run-off is as harmful to water quality and wildlife as synthetic
> fertilizer run-off is; the question is, which can be applied most
> efficiently, with less waste. And if you think farm workers are
being
> poisoned by pesticide residues, you have remedies under MSPA and OSHA
> and our country's famously punative tort system to prove it under.
You
> don't mention the environmental expense which the creators of organic
> fertilizers incur; it takes pasture and fodder to raise a cow.
>
>
The
> points about erosion and soil-loss are red herrings; "no-till" is now
a
> mainstream technique,
>
>but typically the larger operators have the
> capital to do a better job of it.
>
> Neil

Precisely.

Sheldon

at Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:56:41 GMT in <1109869001.780053.45920
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, (Neil) wrote :

>>Chemistry aside, it tends to keep farmland as farmland, giving
>>farmers an economically-viable option to selling out to developers.
>
>No real correlation there. Any system of farming that makes the farmer
>successful tends to keep the land out of development. Farmers are
>successful if they produce crops cheaply that the public desires.
>Organic production doesn't contribute much to that end.

It must be said that in fact organic production contributes a great deal to
that end. A lot of farmers are converting to organic for the simple reason
that they can't make ends meet growing conventionally. The problem with
growing conventionally, from the farmers' POV, is that it puts you
completely in the commodity market, where those who win are those who sell
for the lowest possible cost. A small American farmer can't compete on a
cost basis with either a large agribusiness or a farm in places where costs
are generally less, e.g. Mexico. Thus if he grows for the conventional
market, he faces minuscule to nonexistent profits because he can barely, if
at all, sell his products for enough money to cover his costs. Meanwhile,
organic products can be sold at considerable premiums over conventional,
enough, in fact, that the farmer can more than make up for increased costs
of production. So he converts to organic, makes a profit, and stays alive.
The farm doesn't get sold to developers.

The large industrial-scale farm sees a totally different economic position.
For him, his benefit comes from economies of scale, which allow him to cut
costs and thereby compete in the conventional market at commodity prices
while still making a profit. For him, there's no incentive to switch to
organic because that raises his production costs, and to a greater extent
than that of the smaller farmer because the extra management intensity must
be multiplied over the larger acreage under cultivation. So if he produces
organic, he stands to make less of a profit, possibly none at all. However,
the large industrial-scale farm also feels little market pressure from
developers to sell. His acreage is simply too large, and generally too far
removed from urban corridors, to command much value for nonfarm uses in the
real estate market. So developers rarely have an interest in his land.
Indeed, one of the things he probably did in order to achieve greater
economies of scale is deliberately to site his farm on land with low value
and little prospect for rapid appreciation.

Thus the farmland under threat is typically that with a patchwork of small
farmers struggling to eke out a living. In those conditions, organic
farming quite often offers the only realistic alternative that keeps the
farmer in business.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

"johny b" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've recently been trying to eat mostly organic food for a healthier
> diet. Here in NJ we have Wholefoods and health shoppe (i'm sure there
> are many more, i just haven't found them out yet). Upon researching on
> the internet, there seems to be many debates as to what is considered
> and sold as organic at stores. Some claims have been made that the
> USDA allows some pesticides to be used yet still be labled as organic.
> I would just like to hear some opinions as to how much healthier the
> food in these stores which claim to be organic really is. Is this a
> hoax etc.? Any information regardling what to look for and what to
> lookout for, or any valuable details is most appreciated. Thanks!
>

I remember an experiment done a few years back with two nearly adjacent
fields of cabbages in California, if I remember the location correctly .
One was grown "organically" - no pesticides, etc., and the other grown
commercially - side-dressed fertilizer and 1/8 tsp/acre in one application
of pesticide. The field test was done to check any differences in product or
soil.

When they tested the crops after harvest, the organically grown cabbages
could not pass the import levels test for pesticides. Apparently they had
been attacked by insects at least once, and created their own natural
insecticides.
The commercial ones passed without traces.

(I remember from survival training as well as from my plant specialist
father that most plants will make their own pesticides -as alkoids, if I
remember right-
The training noted that some plants will be poisonous when attacked by
insects, so use caution around otherwise edible plants showing fair to heavy
insect damage - for example, cherry leaves become poisonous to humans later
in the year, and several varieties of trees when attacked by army worms will
put out toxins that about ten days after the first attack will kill any
worm.)

However, if the organic cabbages had not been attacked by insects, then they
would not have created their own insecticides.

There are of course other reasons to chose organic - flavor, variation, etc.
A lot of commercial agricultural products are sawdust flavored clones.

Also, I would note that it is rare that much fertilizer or insecticide is
washed off any more, and likely is less damaging than green fiber being put
back from some organic farming techniques which lets deleterious soil
leeching of fines and natural organic fertilizer salts occur (plant can't
take up organics like animals - they have to have inorganic salt in solution
to enter the hair roots. Undigested plant matter holds the soil open and
lets water wash minerals out)
Bottom line here is that fertilizer and insecticide washoff is that it is
too expensive and the farming profit margins too low to throw gobs on a
field and let it run off, wasted.

Some organic farming is supposedly soil-sustainable, and uses limited
pyrethrin-type pesticides on an as-needed basis. If I knew which categaory
that was, I'd probably buy it.

fwiw

"Saerah" > wrote in message
...
>
> Gregory Morrow wrote in message
> et>...
> >
> >Whole Foods IIRC is some joint out of California,
>
> nope. texas.

Austin, to be exact. Austin (at least inner-city) is more like California
than Texas--very progressive and "hippyish". An oasis of sense in a vast
desert of stupidity...

Mary

Alex Rast wrote:

>reducing the debate to a legalistic courtroom
>trial - using tactics appropriate to an attorney interviewing a
hostile
>witness. It assumes, a priori, an adversarial relationship, and that's
what
>you create - with no opportunity for cooperation, collaboration,
discovery
>of shared interests and goals, things that would explore the synergies
>between each of the 2 methods of production and allow environmentally
>unimpeachable progress in farming technology. As it is, there's no
real
>debate, only a stream of name-calling from both sides of the issue. It
>clouds both the issues and the facts and leaves the ordinary consumer
>confused with no way to get good information.

You just described the political discourse in this country, and
especially online.

Thanks for the nice summary of reasons for choosing either organic or
conventional methods. I'm going to copy and save.

BTW, I "cherry pick" organic food consumption. I don't buy organic
milk, but do buy that which is free of that bovine growth hormone. I
never buy conventional potatoes because the pesticides used on them are
so terrible. Spinach, green beans and broccoli are other items I try to
buy organic when possible. I know conventional strawberries are pretty
toxic, although I'll indulge sometimes, but when even mainstream
Parents' Mag warns that the levels of pesticides etc. are too high for
little kids, I get concerned for my pre-schoolers. So I buy organic
berries, often the frozen kind.

When it comes to chicken and beef, I just go "hormone and antibiotic
free", don't require organic. And I also eat out and don't ask too many
questions. Who can be perfectly pure? You pick the worst offenders
(again, potatoes, greens, green beans, strawberries) and wing it for
the rest. I fail to see how "organic" boxed macaroni and cheese is
demonstrably better for you than the regular stuff. How about regular
macaroni dressed with real parmesan, butter and cheddar? I never buy
the "organic" snacky stuff my fellow middle class moms like. Chips and
popcorn are chips and popcorn, guys, and I'll just pop my own kernels,
thank you.

Leila

You know, three and a half years ago we were mourning 9/11. It took
about 3 months though for people on this NG to start sniping at each
other, trashing New Yorkers, Southerners, Californians, etc.

I don't like much about dominant Texas politics but I love my
right-wing Texas cousins and not one of them is stupid. OK some of them
have some dumb ideas about the rest of the world but that's because
their culture is isolated and they live in an echo chamber of
xenophobia. But we Californians have our own echo chamber that
amplifies our own prejudices, not quite visible to ourselves but
perhaps painfully visible to ... Texans.

In the meantime, I'll say it again, my right-wing, evangelist Christian
Texas cousins are smart as whips. And furthermore, they're all
Americans. Human beings, too.

I just don't get this business of trashing whole States. (or countries
for that matter, but I'm staying out of the Francophobia hysteria).

This liberal, Arab-loving, Jew-loving*, ***-friendly, pacifist,
feminist, pro-choice, multi-cultural, French speaking, Camembert
eating, Champagne drinking Californian sends a great big smooch to
Texas (and New York too). God love every one of you!

And send us some chili, why don't ya?

Leila

*hey, I married one, but I loved 'em before I met him

Leila wrote:

> This liberal, Arab-loving, Jew-loving*, ***-friendly, pacifist,
> feminist, pro-choice, multi-cultural, French speaking, Camembert
> eating, Champagne drinking Californian sends a great big smooch to
> Texas (and New York too). God love every one of you!
>
> And send us some chili, why don't ya?

....and make it vegetarian! :-)

Bob

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Alex Rast wrote:

> at Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:56:41 GMT in <1109869001.780053.45920
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, (Neil) wrote :
>
>>> Chemistry aside, it tends to keep farmland as farmland, giving
>>> farmers an economically-viable option to selling out to developers.
>>
>> No real correlation there. Any system of farming that makes the farmer
>> successful tends to keep the land out of development. Farmers are
>> successful if they produce crops cheaply that the public desires.
>> Organic production doesn't contribute much to that end.
>
> It must be said that in fact organic production contributes a great deal to
> that end. A lot of farmers are converting to organic for the simple reason
> that they can't make ends meet growing conventionally. The problem with
> growing conventionally, from the farmers' POV, is that it puts you
> completely in the commodity market, where those who win are those who sell
> for the lowest possible cost. A small American farmer can't compete on a
> cost basis with either a large agribusiness or a farm in places where costs
> are generally less, e.g. Mexico. Thus if he grows for the conventional
> market, he faces minuscule to nonexistent profits because he can barely, if
> at all, sell his products for enough money to cover his costs. Meanwhile,
> organic products can be sold at considerable premiums over conventional,
> enough, in fact, that the farmer can more than make up for increased costs
> of production. So he converts to organic, makes a profit, and stays alive.
> The farm doesn't get sold to developers.

there are other alternatives. like farming _intelligently_. but, I've
got to tell you, I think all the smart farmers have been out of the
business for years.

Lena

will buy nutri-farmed food. if you find any, please tell me where! :-)

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Leila wrote:

> You know, three and a half years ago we were mourning 9/11. It took
> about 3 months though for people on this NG to start sniping at each
> other, trashing New Yorkers, Southerners, Californians, etc.

maybe you were. me, i went through my standard checklist, and concluded
it wasn't going to hurt me. that standard checklist gets checked quite
frequently... I have relatives in Tel Aviv. (insensitive? nah... just...
hardened).

> I don't like much about dominant Texas politics but I love my
> right-wing Texas cousins and not one of them is stupid. OK some of them
> have some dumb ideas about the rest of the world but that's because
> their culture is isolated and they live in an echo chamber of
> xenophobia.

I sincerely hope they won't be pointing fingers and saying "Hey! there's a
black person!" in NYC... unlike _some_ people I know. (pennsyltucky is a
very backwards place.)

> But we Californians have our own echo chamber that
> amplifies our own prejudices, not quite visible to ourselves but
> perhaps painfully visible to ... Texans.

ayup you do. and it might be nice to remember that people can change
their opinions. the idiot saying, "*** love cannot exist" may have never
_met_ a counterexample.

> In the meantime, I'll say it again, my right-wing, evangelist Christian
> Texas cousins are smart as whips. And furthermore, they're all
> Americans. Human beings, too.

yah. pity i hate americans, ain't it? ;-)

> This liberal, Arab-loving, Jew-loving*, ***-friendly, pacifist,
lena

yes, ain't is a word. and it is older than isn't. so _there_.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, -- wrote:

>
> "johny b" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> I've recently been trying to eat mostly organic food for a healthier
>> diet. Here in NJ we have Wholefoods and health shoppe (i'm sure there
>> are many more, i just haven't found them out yet). Upon researching on
>> the internet, there seems to be many debates as to what is considered
>> and sold as organic at stores. Some claims have been made that the
>> USDA allows some pesticides to be used yet still be labled as organic.
>> I would just like to hear some opinions as to how much healthier the
>> food in these stores which claim to be organic really is. Is this a
>> hoax etc.? Any information regardling what to look for and what to
>> lookout for, or any valuable details is most appreciated. Thanks!
>>
>
> I remember an experiment done a few years back with two nearly adjacent
> fields of cabbages in California, if I remember the location correctly .
> One was grown "organically" - no pesticides, etc., and the other grown
> commercially - side-dressed fertilizer and 1/8 tsp/acre in one application
> of pesticide. The field test was done to check any differences in product or
> soil.
>
> When they tested the crops after harvest, the organically grown cabbages
> could not pass the import levels test for pesticides. Apparently they had
> been attacked by insects at least once, and created their own natural
> insecticides.
> The commercial ones passed without traces.
>
> (I remember from survival training as well as from my plant specialist
> father that most plants will make their own pesticides -as alkoids, if I
> remember right-
> The training noted that some plants will be poisonous when attacked by
> insects, so use caution around otherwise edible plants showing fair to heavy
> insect damage - for example, cherry leaves become poisonous to humans later
> in the year, and several varieties of trees when attacked by army worms will
> put out toxins that about ten days after the first attack will kill any
> worm.)
>
> However, if the organic cabbages had not been attacked by insects, then they
> would not have created their own insecticides.
>
> There are of course other reasons to chose organic - flavor, variation, etc.
> A lot of commercial agricultural products are sawdust flavored clones.
>
> Also, I would note that it is rare that much fertilizer or insecticide is
> washed off any more, and likely is less damaging than green fiber being put
> back from some organic farming techniques which lets deleterious soil
> leeching of fines and natural organic fertilizer salts occur (plant can't
> take up organics like animals - they have to have inorganic salt in solution
> to enter the hair roots. Undigested plant matter holds the soil open and
> lets water wash minerals out)
> Bottom line here is that fertilizer and insecticide washoff is that it is
> too expensive and the farming profit margins too low to throw gobs on a
> field and let it run off, wasted.
>
> Some organic farming is supposedly soil-sustainable, and uses limited
> pyrethrin-type pesticides on an as-needed basis. If I knew which categaory
> that was, I'd probably buy it.

try nutra-farmed foods. the only stuff i've seen advertising it is
Basmati rice, but I'll _walk_ to the store to buy it.

lena

nutrafarming is _intelligent_ farming. as little pesticides as necessary,
and _all_ the tricks in the book, organic/traditional/modern.

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, shroomer wrote:

>
> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> johny b wrote:
>>> I've recently been trying to eat mostly organic food for a healthier
>>> diet. Here in NJ we have Wholefoods and health shoppe (i'm sure
>> there
>>> are many more, i just haven't found them out yet). Upon researching
>> on
>>> the internet, there seems to be many debates as to what is considered
>>> and sold as organic at stores. Some claims have been made that the
>>> USDA allows some pesticides to be used yet still be labled as
>> organic.
>>> I would just like to hear some opinions as to how much healthier the
>>> food in these stores which claim to be organic really is. Is this a
>>> hoax etc.? Any information regardling what to look for and what to
>>> lookout for, or any valuable details is most appreciated.
>>
>> Organic Foods is a belief system (a religion if you will), if you
>> believe it's organic then it is... but in the US there is no government
>> Standard.
>
> See http://tinyurl.com/3m22m for specifications for USDA organic
> regulations. There are very specific rules for legally labeling food as
> organic. It includes certification, permissible farming methods, and
> testing. There are some pesticides permitted in organic agriculture.
> However, they are of the type that have a very short half-life and are used
> by a very small percentage of organic farmers. Organic agriculture isn't
> just about the use of fertilizers, it's also about responsible use of the
> land and water.

responsible use of land and water entails getting as much food as you can
from it, so as little as possible needs to be under cultivation (which in
of itself drains resources from the soil). so... you think by draining
the soil of resources, we are being responsible? We aren't. think again.
there are too many humans to be responsible about anything. (don't ask me
how I think you should be responsible.... ;-) )

>> If you drive an automobile, use airplanes, ride
>> a bus, go on steamship cruises, or engage in using any petrol driven
>> devices and think Organic Foods is based in reality then you are a
>> hypocrite.
>
> Not me, I admit that my car is not organic.

feh. no car. no bike. no bus. that's me! and I do not regularly buy
organic. e'en so, i'm probably doing more for the environment than those
who do.

>> But I'd not be too concerned with Organic (for those with
>> more dollars than brain cells), the human body is quite remarkable at
>> surviving.
>
> You should read more about the high incidence of cancer among the American
> population. Much of it is attributed to the use of pesticides, fertilizers,
> growth hormones, steroids, and other chemicals used in the production of our
> food.

damn little ****tards. quote sources (try medline, under epidemiology).
next, get your bloody facts straight.

Here, let _me_ help, out of the kindness of my heart (and pity). Try
infertility, or asthma. not cancer. the rise in cancer can be directly
attributed to the rise in... washing our hands. ;-). you live longer,
you die by other things.

carcinogenic compounds have been in our food since time immemorial.

>> The only thing organic about the organic produce section is
>> that it's bull shit... expensive bull shit.
>
> When's the last time you shopped for organic food? Try visiting Whole Foods
> or another natural food store and compare prices with what you buy in your
> usual grocery store. You will be surprised to find that most items are
> comparable in cost, and sometimes even lower.

whole foods? you mean the people who sell $50 watermelons?

nothing there is the same price. and that's not even counting sales.

lena

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=11414540

interesting article.

search for stuff on flavonoids if you'd like

lena

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, aem wrote:

> shroomer wrote:
> [snips]
>> Here's an article from WebMD (http://tinyurl.com/567ej) stating that
>> organic foods are higher in flavanoids which "play important roles
>> in preventing cancer and heart disease".

try looking for metaanalyses... they summarise the field. here's one
disagreeing with webMD

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=11833635

lena

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, shroomer wrote:

>
> "aem" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> shroomer wrote:
>>> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>>
>> [snip OP]
>>>> Organic Foods is a belief system (a religion if you will), if you
>>>> believe it's organic then it is... but in the US there is no
>>>> government Standard.
>>>
>>> See http://tinyurl.com/3m22m for specifications for USDA organic
>>> regulations. There are very specific rules for legally labeling food
>>> as organic. It includes certification, permissible farming methods,
>>> and testing. There are some pesticides permitted in organic
>>> agriculture. However, they are of the type that have a very short
>>> half-life and are used by a very small percentage of organic farmers.
>>> Organic agriculture isn't just about the use of fertilizers, it's
>>> also about responsible use of the land and water.
>>
>> Sounds to me like you agree with Sheldon: "responsible use of the land
>> and water" is pretty much equivalent to "a belief system."
>
> Hardly. Organic farming reduces the amount of pesticides and fertilizers
> going into the earth thus preserving the quality of water and soil. This has
> far reaching effects in maintaining the balance of the ecosystem. Further,
> it reduces the contaminants that eventually find their way into the food we
> eat and the water that we drink, both directly and indirectly. This is not
> a "belief system", but scientific facts.

then dispute this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12042017

Scientific facts my arse!

Lena

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Lena B Katz wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, shroomer wrote:
>
>>> But I'd not be too concerned with Organic (for those with
>>> more dollars than brain cells), the human body is quite remarkable at
>>> surviving.
>>
>> You should read more about the high incidence of cancer among the American
>> population. Much of it is attributed to the use of pesticides,
>> fertilizers,
>> growth hormones, steroids, and other chemicals used in the production of
>> our
>> food.
>
> damn little ****tards. quote sources (try medline, under epidemiology).
> next, get your bloody facts straight.
>
> Here, let _me_ help, out of the kindness of my heart (and pity). Try
> infertility, or asthma. not cancer. the rise in cancer can be directly
> attributed to the rise in... washing our hands. ;-). you live longer, you
> die by other things.

some help i turn out to be!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10473800

lena

The main reason why I buy a particular brand of organic fat free milk
is because it looks and tastes better than other non-organic ff milk
that I've been able to purchase (without the added carageenan to make
it look/taste like 2%). I cannot tell you why I happened to try this
particular brand of milk except I was just plain curious. Both my
daughter and myself noticed the difference right away. We'll both
drink non-organic fat free milk and I've even used reconstituted
non-fat dry milk (talk about concentrating those chemicals!) but we
both prefer this organic fat free milk. But the post did say *most*
organic foods.

Heidi