Did the price of organic apples skyrocket for anyone else?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Oh, and apologies to the OP for diverting the thread off-topic.
OP: apples are now out of season in both hemispheres, hence the higher price. /thread.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
By your statement above, you have finally agreed with my point. Congrats.

Don't hurt yourself over-analyzing data. I said nothing about apples nor natural pesticides. The study I linked = an example from 2002 of where I got the notion that organics contain 1-2 pesticides on average. Furthermore, CNN stating that most of the Dirty Dozen contain 47-67 residues is a fact proven the annual Pesticide Data Program, e.g. blueberries testing positive for a large percentage of chemicals.

I'm glad that you finally understand why people choose organic over non-organic; I agree that safety is still not proven because we don't know enough about how dosages affect the human body. Better safe than sorry, 47 times more in fact.

Quoted for evidence of lack of reading comprehension. I did not agree with your point. I'm disputing your comparison of 1-2 pesticide residues to 47-67 pesticides, which is complete bullshit. If you're going with the 47-67 figure for apples, then the pesticide figure for organic apples is in the 30's. Also, it's a proven fact that organic apparently contains HIGHER levels of at least one chemical that is considered to probably be a carcinogen.

As far as saying nothing about natural pesticides, you have one link which says 47-67, and another, more scientific source, saying no more than 14.
 
Last edited:

Jzero

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
18,834
1
0
Also, it's a proven fact that organic apparently contains HIGHER levels of at least one chemical that is considered to probably be a carcinogen.

Yeah there are some nasty chemical *-cides allowed under organic certification.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Yeah there are some nasty chemical *-cides allowed under organic certification.

yes, there are. However, many (most?) plants produce their own natural pesticides. It's academic dishonesty to count these for one study of non-organic produce, and to not count them for a study of organic when making a comparison.

And, since the reading-comprehension impaired arguer wants to switch to celery, here's this:
Celery, parsley, and parsnips contain the linear furanocoumarin phytoalexins psoralen, bergapten, and xanthotoxin that can cause photosensitization and also are photomutagenic and photocarcinogenic. Celery field workers and handlers continually have photosensitization problems as a result of these indigenous celery furanocoumarins. A new celery cultivar (a result of plant breeding to produce a more pest-resistant variety) was responsible for significant incidences of phytophotodermatitis of grocery employees. Since there is no regulatory agency or body designated to oversee potential toxicological issues associated with naturally occurring toxicants, photodermatitis continues to occur from celery exposure.
These chemicals are NATURALLY occurring in celery - NOT the result of pesticide use. Yet, he wants to pretend that organically raised celery wouldn't contain these chemicals. I'm not sure if he's just trolling, or really is that foolish. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2404325
There's no reason to assume that organic is safer. In fact, there are several studies that show that some of the predominant methods of growing organic lead to higher risks of certain types of contamination.
 
Last edited:

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,512
4,607
136
I live in Boston and recently the price of organic Apples here shot up about .70/lbs...this happen for anyone else? Usually they're not that much more expensive than regular apples, but at that price now I can't afford to buy them...

All apples are organic.

or·gan·ic   [awr-gan-ik] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.
2.
characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms: organic remains found in rocks.
3.
of or pertaining to an organ or the organs of an animal, plant, or fungus.
4.
of, pertaining to, or affecting living tissue: organic pathology
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
142
106
Quoted for evidence of lack of reading comprehension. I did not agree with your point. I'm disputing your comparison of 1-2 pesticide residues to 47-67 pesticides, which is complete bullshit. If you're going with the 47-67 figure for apples, then the pesticide figure for organic apples is in the 30's. Also, it's a proven fact that organic apparently contains HIGHER levels of at least one chemical that is considered to probably be a carcinogen.

As far as saying nothing about natural pesticides, you have one link which says 47-67, and another, more scientific source, saying no more than 14.

Once again you display fail logic as you attempt to split hairs because you agreed with my point.

From the study I linked:
Multiple Residues: Conventionally grown foods often contain residues of more than one pesticide. A conventionally grown apple tested by USDA in 1996 was more likely to contain four or more residues than to contain three or less, and some individual samples have been found with as many as 14 different residues. We examined the frequency of multiple residues and again found highly statistically significant differences between the market categories. Conventionally grown samples had multiple residues in 46, 12 and 62 percent of USDA, DPR and CU samples, respectively. Organic samples had multiple residues in only 7, 1.3 and 6 percent of the samples in those three data sets.

You're subtracting the 14 pesticides from this 2002 study from the USDA's annual list? Are you sure you're a science teacher? Because anyone with logic would discern:

1) We don't know how many or which chemicals were tested in 2002 study.
2) Subtracting results between 2 different, unrelated studies is epic fail.

Again, are you sure you're a science teacher?

Here, let me help you with an argument:
You could have disputed the 2002 study's % ratio of roughly 6:1; non-organic residue:0rganic vs my ratio of 47:1. In any case, results for organic will vary depending on the standards of the farm and I think it's safe to say that organic will still contain at least 1-2 residues. If they contain slightly more, you're just splitting hairs.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
142
106
yes, there are. However, many (most?) plants produce their own natural pesticides. It's academic dishonesty to count these for one study of non-organic produce, and to not count them for a study of organic when making a comparison.

And, since the reading-comprehension impaired arguer wants to switch to celery, here's this: These chemicals are NATURALLY occurring in celery - NOT the result of pesticide use. Yet, he wants to pretend that organically raised celery wouldn't contain these chemicals. I'm not sure if he's just trolling, or really is that foolish. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2404325
There's no reason to assume that organic is safer. In fact, there are several studies that show that some of the predominant methods of growing organic lead to higher risks of certain types of contamination.

Now you're linking food allergies? Just give it up already.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
"Allergies"? Again, perhaps it IS that you are selectively blind. Did you miss the title of the article which contains the key two words:
Natural pesticides


The original study you linked to also counted naturally occurring pesticides. It doesn't take too much thought to conclude, "well, if at the most, there are 14 applied pesticides, and the total of 67 pesticides includes naturally occurring pesticides then..."

And, you're calling it "food allergies" in my most recent link? Now I'm pretty sure you're just trolling. You've also completely ignored another issue: concentration. But, I don't have the time to bother any more.

But, here, you may as well read this (and you can follow the references to peer reviewed journals, not CNN articles.)
http://www.greenbalance.org/cancer/2-cancer-chemicals.htm
 
Last edited:
Mar 15, 2003
12,669
103
106
You mother fuckers really take this shit too seriously. Dr. Pizza -what's your personal stake in all of this? Just curious.. It's wonderful that our market allows us choice, why not just let people buy what they like?
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
142
106
"Allergies"? Again, perhaps it IS that you are selectively blind. Did you miss the title of the article which contains the key two words:
Natural pesticides


The original study you linked to also counted naturally occurring pesticides. It doesn't take too much thought to conclude, "well, if at the most, there are 14 applied pesticides, and the total of 67 pesticides includes naturally occurring pesticides then..."

And, you're calling it "food allergies" in my most recent link? Now I'm pretty sure you're just trolling. You've also completely ignored another issue: concentration. But, I don't have the time to bother any more.

But, here, you may as well read this (and you can follow the references to peer reviewed journals, not CNN articles.)
http://www.greenbalance.org/cancer/2-cancer-chemicals.htm

Yes, food allergies = natural adverse reaction to natural foods (rash from example).

From your quackjob professor's powerpoint,
http://potency.berkeley.edu/MOE.html

Consumption of natural chemicals in the diet (green on the right) occurs in common foods at a range of MOE levels, and many are much closer to the rodent cancer dose...

No diet can be free of naturally occurring chemicals that cause cancer in rodents at high doses. [See green chemical exposures in graphic on right].

Then she goes on to list in green:
coffee, beer, toast, mushrooms, celery, french fries, bacon, lettuce, bread and hamburger.

So basically, everything in the diet causes cancer. Awesome assessment!


If you're going to accept her "natural pesticides" theory then you may as well never drink coffee again because it has a > % tested positive:

Proportion Of Chemicals That Are Carcinogenic in High Dose Rodent Experiments

Chemicals tested in rats or mice 52% 786/1523
Natural pesticides 53% 43/81
Commercial pesticides 40% 82/206
Mold toxins 59% 16/27
Natural chemicals in roasted coffee 72% 23/32

/cuckoo /cuckoo

I seriously hope you don't believe this BS. If you do, then I hope you don't drink coffee or alcoholic beverages.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,175
5,641
146
Yes, food allergies = natural adverse reaction to natural foods (rash from example).

From your quackjob professor's powerpoint,
http://potency.berkeley.edu/MOE.html



Then she goes on to list in green:
coffee, beer, toast, mushrooms, celery, french fries, bacon, lettuce, bread and hamburger.

So basically, everything in the diet causes cancer. Awesome assessment!


If you're going to accept her "natural pesticides" theory then you may as well never drink coffee again because it has a > % tested positive:

Proportion Of Chemicals That Are Carcinogenic in High Dose Rodent Experiments

Chemicals tested in rats or mice 52% 786/1523
Natural pesticides 53% 43/81
Commercial pesticides 40% 82/206
Mold toxins 59% 16/27
Natural chemicals in roasted coffee 72% 23/32

/cuckoo /cuckoo

I seriously hope you don't believe this BS. If you do, then I hope you don't drink coffee or alcoholic beverages.

Surely this:
that cause cancer in rodents at high doses
has absolutely no impact on that.

You're calling her a quack for pointing out that you get natural chemicals in foods that people typically eat, that when given to rats in high doses causes cancer? You're aware that, yes, in fact a ton of things in high doses will cause cancer?

What Dr. Pizza was pointing out in saying how you're ignoring concentration is that just because there are more chemicals found, the concentration would absolutely play a huge role in it being dangerous. Which would you rather eat, food that has .001% comprised of combined 100 chemicals or one that has 1% of 1 chemical?
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
142
106
Surely this:

has absolutely no impact on that.

You're calling her a quack for pointing out that you get natural chemicals in foods that people typically eat, that when given to rats in high doses causes cancer? You're aware that, yes, in fact a ton of things in high doses will cause cancer?

What Dr. Pizza was pointing out in saying how you're ignoring concentration is that just because there are more chemicals found, the concentration would absolutely play a huge role in it being dangerous. Which would you rather eat, food that has .001% comprised of combined 100 chemicals or one that has 1% of 1 chemical?

That's completely obvious. The discussion isn't about dose hypotheses but how many different chemicals that are ingested by eating non-organic vs organic. He somehow diverted the topic from synthetic chemicals to some quack professor's powerpoint slide that everything we eat may cause cancer in rats at high dosages? That's deep.

If we knew exactly how the human body responded to different dosages then we'd be able to cure cancer. The fact of the matter is that we don't, and minimizing our intake of synthetic chemicals (we can control) by eating organics has nothing to do with something that may be out of our control (eating "natural chemicals" that may cause cancer or an allergic reaction due to its genetic modification that we don't know about). DrP will argue just for the sake of arguing; if he is that passionate about natural pesticide theory and GMO food allergies then he should create a new thread about it.

All in all I got him to agree with my main point which is pretty dam rare.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
wtf? You're seriously saying we don't know how the body responds to different dosages of synthetic chemicals? lmao. (checks bottle of tylenol for an incredibly simple counterexample.) And, is there a doctor in the house - my kids parked the boat on top of the hose going to the barn. I pushed the boat forward on the trailer as I pulled the hose. It finally snapped loose, allowing me to put about 90% of my right arm pulling strength into smashing my elbow against the propeller of the boat. That's gonna leave a mark. Oh well... another 8000 pounds of hay in the loft today & aisle of the barn clean (but not washed), most of mission accomplished.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,175
5,641
146
That's completely obvious. The discussion isn't about dose hypotheses but how many different chemicals that are ingested by eating non-organic vs organic. He somehow diverted the topic from synthetic chemicals to some quack professor's powerpoint slide that everything we eat may cause cancer in rats at high dosages? That's deep.

If we knew exactly how the human body responded to different dosages then we'd be able to cure cancer. The fact of the matter is that we don't, and minimizing our intake of synthetic chemicals (we can control) by eating organics has nothing to do with something that may be out of our control (eating "natural chemicals" that may cause cancer or an allergic reaction due to its genetic modification that we don't know about). DrP will argue just for the sake of arguing; if he is that passionate about natural pesticide theory and GMO food allergies then he should create a new thread about it.

All in all I got him to agree with my main point which is pretty dam rare.

If you're going to claim someone is a quack you better be able to explain your reasoning for it. He was using it to point out something, namely that just because there's a chemical in the food doesn't mean it was put there by pesticides, and that if one side is going to mislead with obfuscation by ignoring that theirs' would have the same chemicals then it doesn't make it an even comparison.

And you keep bringing up this "arguing for the sake of arguing", yet, you seem to be the one doing that more than anyone. You claim someone to be a quack for no apparent reason while ignoring a fundamental point and then admit that it obviously matters, and then proceed to claim we don't understand it at all?
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
142
106
If you're going to claim someone is a quack you better be able to explain your reasoning for it. He was using it to point out something, namely that just because there's a chemical in the food doesn't mean it was put there by pesticides, and that if one side is going to mislead with obfuscation by ignoring that theirs' would have the same chemicals then it doesn't make it an even comparison.

And you keep bringing up this "arguing for the sake of arguing", yet, you seem to be the one doing that more than anyone. You claim someone to be a quack for no apparent reason while ignoring a fundamental point and then admit that it obviously matters, and then proceed to claim we don't understand it at all?

Look, he was subtracting 14 chemical residues found out of X (we don't even know which chemicals or how many they tested in total) from the 2002 study from the freaking 2010 DD Average of 47 from the CNN article. He's arguing that the difference of 47 - 14 = 33 "natural pesticides" when he doesn't even know what they tested for in the other 2002 study (unless he paid $18 for it). If you think it's scientifically sound to argue using that logic then god help us all.

Last, I never said DrP was a quack but that the lady he linked might be because her conclusion was that it's unavoidable to eat cancer causing food in our diets. Wow, what an epiphany. Furthermore, her project is funded by the Dept of Energy under Cheney (2008 and prior) so it loses some credibility in my eyes. They have an agenda to discredit organics through academia because agribusiness was in bed with the DoE.

DrP: Hope your elbow feels better bud.
 
Mar 15, 2003
12,669
103
106
thats nonsense. organic milk taste just as bland as the store milk right next to it. If you want really good milk you need to get it from a dairy.

like these guys.

http://www.royalcrestdairy.com/

Well, organic doesn't automatically mean good and vice versa, of course. But around me, NYC so there are not many farms up the block, organic milk generally tastes less watery and more creamy than "regular" milk. I'm a 1% drinker and non-organic milk generally has a taste profile that I don't like... Also, the organic milk we buy tends to stay longer, which I don't really understand why...
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,235
117
116
They seem to be the same price around here. I picked up some Organic Grannies last night and they were about the same as they always are, though I must admit I do not pay very close attention to the price of apples. Certainly deliciousness though! :awe:

KT
 

Anonemous

Diamond Member
May 19, 2003
7,361
1
71
An apple is organic. Unless you grew it yourself you would never know what was sprayed or applied to the fruit/veggie you are eating. All I see is that 'organic' labeled foods are sometimes 50-100% more expensive than non labeled organic food. They also look much smaller and not as large as their 'non-organic' counterparts. Eat whatever you wish and makes you happier. I see no clear difference in nutrition between the two except a dent in the pocket book.

/at least the OP didn't shop at Bread and Circus (aka Wholefoods) in Allston and Brighton
 

Jzero

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
18,834
1
0
An apple is organic. Unless you grew it yourself you would never know what was sprayed or applied to the fruit/veggie you are eating. All I see is that 'organic' labeled foods are sometimes 50-100% more expensive than non labeled organic food. They also look much smaller and not as large as their 'non-organic' counterparts. Eat whatever you wish and makes you happier. I see no clear difference in nutrition between the two except a dent in the pocket book.

/at least the OP didn't shop at Bread and Circus (aka Wholefoods) in Allston and Brighton

In the US, "Organic" is a federally-regulated titled that you can't just slap willy-nilly on everything, so you have some assurance that CERTAIN chems and pesticides have not been used (but as we mentioned earlier in this thread there are some chems that are allowed under Organic certification that are still pretty nasty). Unfortunately in their intent to ensure that "Organic" is not just applied to anyone looking to charge a premium, they have created an audit and certification apparatus that costs money, which means that Organic MUST carry a premium. As a side-effect, a lot of small local farms who are already fighting fierce price pressure from the huge commercial ag conglomerates cannot afford to pay to be certified and still price competitively. The end result is pretty much the opposite of what organic food was intended to be!

If this is important to you, you're better off getting your produce from a farmers market/CSA than a supermarket.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |