Organic food is no healthier, study finds

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunSamurai


Youd make a great dad. "EAT THE POISON SON WE SAVED 20CENTS!"

Gotta love the fear mongering.

Show me one valid study that shows people who eat "organic" foods live longer or are healthier than people who eat the same diet but non-organic.

Oops!

Regardless of whether it kills you or not, it is a form of poison. That is after all its actual intent... to kill pests.

Everything is a poison, given the right dose.

It's all baseless fearmongering until valid studies show the same exact diet of organic vs non-organic foods offers differing results in lifespans and health.

So far, no such valid studies exists.

And isn't it funny how lifespans and health have only improved dramatically in the time frame that modern, effective farming techniques came about and continues to improve today?

Everything may be bad for you given the right dose, but not everything is created specifically for that purpose.

Your last paragraph is complete gibberish. Yet again, you seem to have no concept of confounding factors.

Complete gibberish???

Look, either provide valid studies showing people who eat identical diets of "organic" vs non-"organic" foods have differences in health or life span or just admit you're giving into irrational fears over unsubstantiated claims.

And my last paragraph is hardly gibberish. Explain why life spans increased dramatically while modern farming came about if modern farming is so bad for us?

Life span increased during a period of time. One of the things during that time was modernization of farming. But that is not the only thing, nor does it mean that modernized farming contributed.

You do not seem to have the capacity to understand the term confounding factors because you keep making this same, basic mistake. No person who understood science at the level you claim to would keep making this gross error. You do not have any way of knowing what life spans would be without "modern farming" because you have no time machine.

Life spans have also increased since World War 2. Maybe you will next try to imply that World War 2 is good for human health.

 

[SunSamurai]

Phokus.idiot.

lawl

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: zoiks

I disagree. At least for meats, the chicken that I purchase (organic/free range) are so much more tastier than the safeway variety.

In the case of meat, the organic animals are usually treated better than they are from corporate farms.

OH NOES!!! Really, honestly, why the hell do you care how an animal was treated if you still support it being killed so you can eat it. Kind of hypocritical don't ya think?
"Oh, I care about you and your well being." Lights up grill "Now time to humanely kill you so I can eat your tasty flesh"

More bullshit. There is no incentive for corporate farms to abuse their animals. In fact, abusing animals hurts their bottom line. The happier and more comfortable the animals are, the better they put on weight. That equals greater profits. Furthermore, there are idiots proposing laws that are actually detrimental to animal health, simply because these idiots "think" that what they are proposing is correct. Unfortunately, their proposals are often not based on fact, just based on incorrect gut instinct. Likewise, a lot of people trust their gut instincts in deciding what constitutes abuse and what doesn't.

You've made a leap here in your thinking. It may be that happier and comfortable animals put on weight, but how do you get to more profitable? Maybe you have some budgetary knowledge that I don't, but you still have to put more money and effort into making the animal comfortable and happy than you would making them uncomfortable and unhappy. The question is whether the money you put into it yields enough profit to justify it.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: SunSamurai
Phokus.idiot.

lawl

I hate to say it but this type of post is just very annoying. It drives me crazy, kinda like the "black car is black" kinda posts.

 

[Capt Caveman]

I'd be interested in knowing how much Atrazine is left on non-organic food.

Tap water, weedkiller ? and dispute over safety

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
I'd be interested in knowing how much Atrazine is left on non-organic food.

Tap water, weedkiller ? and dispute over safety

It doesn't matter. It's not dangerous.

"The exposure that the agency allows under its atrazine drinking-water regulations is at least 300 to 1,000 times lower than the level where the agency saw health effects in the most sensitive animal species tested,"

Then again I'm sure you wash your precious overpriced organic vegetables in distilled or bottled water, right? You wouldn't DARE use tap water on them?

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
I'd be interested in knowing how much Atrazine is left on non-organic food.

Tap water, weedkiller ? and dispute over safety

It doesn't matter. It's not dangerous.

"The exposure that the agency allows under its atrazine drinking-water regulations is at least 300 to 1,000 times lower than the level where the agency saw health effects in the most sensitive animal species tested,"

Then again I'm sure you wash your precious overpriced organic vegetables in distilled or bottled water, right? You wouldn't DARE use tap water on them?

Interesting - it's not dangerous. However look at the rise in incidence of birth defects, cancers and most importantly "mental diseases" over the last 100 years. Surely prolonged exposure to trace amounts of substances won't kill us will it? It's all just a coincidence. Nothing to see here.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Interesting - it's not dangerous. However look at the rise in incidence of birth defects, cancers and most importantly "mental diseases" over the last 100 years. Surely prolonged exposure to trace amounts of substances won't kill us will it? It's all just a coincidence. Nothing to see here.

I can't keep all the conspiracy theorists straight. Is it power lines, government contaminating the water supply with mind control druggs, cell towers or aliens that is causing those symptoms?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
I'd be interested in knowing how much Atrazine is left on non-organic food.

Tap water, weedkiller ? and dispute over safety

It doesn't matter. It's not dangerous.

"The exposure that the agency allows under its atrazine drinking-water regulations is at least 300 to 1,000 times lower than the level where the agency saw health effects in the most sensitive animal species tested,"

Then again I'm sure you wash your precious overpriced organic vegetables in distilled or bottled water, right? You wouldn't DARE use tap water on them?

Debating How Much Weed Killer Is Safe in Your Water Glass

Yeah ok.

Forty percent of the nation?s community water systems violated the Safe Drinking Water Act at least once last year, according to a Times analysis of E.P.A. data, and dozens of chemicals have been detected at unsafe levels in drinking water.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

http://www.recordonline.com/ap...70116015/-1/NEWS271997

You're a troll phokus. It's why you're here in this thread. And it means that I MUST mean something to you for you to follow me into other threads. I guess that makes you a stalker troll, huh?

I'm done feeding you.

Amused: Still can't respond to science, still can't answer why HIS anecdotes are relevant and other's aren't, STILL links to anecdotes as 'proof', and still flustered and mad

This is exactly why i am not a libertarian anymore.

Thank god for pragmatism and logic.

Stalking and trolling show neither pragmatism nor logic, phokus. And you never were a libertarian. You were and always have been a troll.

I'm not flustered or mad. More amused than anything. Mostly at the fact that you think you've trumped me somehow and feel the need to chase me from thread to thread in a vain attempt validate yourself. I must be a pretty big deal if you think I'm this important.

So this is how Amused acts when he's been been bested by logic. /Bookmarked

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Interesting - it's not dangerous. However look at the rise in incidence of birth defects, cancers and most importantly "mental diseases" over the last 100 years. Surely prolonged exposure to trace amounts of substances won't kill us will it? It's all just a coincidence. Nothing to see here.

I can't keep all the conspiracy theorists straight. Is it power lines, government contaminating the water supply with mind control druggs, cell towers or aliens that is causing those symptoms?

you left out your favorite wacko conspiracy, Spidey: it's all part of Obama's plan to take over your country!

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Interesting - it's not dangerous. However look at the rise in incidence of birth defects, cancers and most importantly "mental diseases" over the last 100 years. Surely prolonged exposure to trace amounts of substances won't kill us will it? It's all just a coincidence. Nothing to see here.

I can't keep all the conspiracy theorists straight. Is it power lines, government contaminating the water supply with mind control druggs, cell towers or aliens that is causing those symptoms?

Wait wait... what about the tin-foil-hat theory? Have you donned a tin foil hat lately?

:laugh:

Honestly though - my wife is an organic nut. My wallet isn't. Unfortunately I indulge her because our son is likely on the autism spectrum. Myself, hell, I don't care. Personally I prefer my cucumbers crunchy and able to stay in the fridge for more than 2 days.

HOWEVER - if I had my druthers, my garden would have worked out this year and I could almost categorically say that my veggies were healthy. And it's cost effective that way too. But it didn't work out, so I'm screwed.

I can't honestly tell you want conspiracy theory is right. I think it's a combination of them honestly. But I'm not willing to go off the deep end either. There are only certain battles worth fighting after all.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: mb

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: mb

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Crusty
So they compared it only on nutritional value? What about taste or other chemicals found?

That's what I'm wondering. No one I know buys organic food for increased nutritional value, but for better taste and no pesticides.

They taste the same and you should always rinse fruit/veggies before eating anyway.

No, organic varieties taste better (not always, of course), and rinsing doesn't remove all the chemicals.

I sure as hell can't taste the difference. Not worth the 100 to 300% mark up. And I doubt there's enough chemicals to worry about.

It's a mental thing. People want to believe they're not wasting their money so they make themselves believe it tastes better

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Interesting - it's not dangerous. However look at the rise in incidence of birth defects, cancers and most importantly "mental diseases" over the last 100 years. Surely prolonged exposure to trace amounts of substances won't kill us will it? It's all just a coincidence. Nothing to see here.

I can't keep all the conspiracy theorists straight. Is it power lines, government contaminating the water supply with mind control druggs, cell towers or aliens that is causing those symptoms?

Something's causing it. You call it conspiracy, I call it facts. CBS News article from August 7th, 2009

Heritage Protects Hispanics
The researchers' finding "confirms some trends we've been seeing in the last few years -- that different U.S. Hispanic populations groups, such as Cubans, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, have higher incidence rates of certain cancers than they do in their homelands," says Amelie G. Ramirez, DrPH, director of the Institute for Health Promotion and Research and co-associate director of the Cancer Prevention and Population Studies Research Program at the Cancer Therapy & Research Center (CTRC) at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

"They also tend to have worse cancer outcomes due to less access to health care and late diagnosis," Ramirez says in a prepared statement.

The study also reflects the reality that Hispanics are not a single ethnic group, but represent several population groups, she says.

Ramirez and Pinheiro agree more research focusing on the Hispanic populations is crucial. About one in three people in the U.S. will be Hispanic by 2050, according to Ramirez. And research is lacking.

Hispanic people who immigrated here, Pinheiro says, should realize that their heritage "can be an advantage if they are able to maintain the protective lifestyle that protects them from cancer."

That probably includes a diet that's not rich in red meat, which has been linked with colorectal cancer, he says, and eating meals prepared at home instead of getting fast food.

-Mexicans had the lowest cancer incidence rate of all the subgroups. They had especially low rates of prostate, breast, endometrial and colorectal cancers. But they had higher rates of cancers associated with minorities -- such as stomach, cervical and liver -- than did whites.
-Cuban women had the highest rate of colorectal cancer among all women studied.

Care to explain why immigrants have higher cancer rates here vs their homelands?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon


Care to explain why immigrants have higher cancer rates here vs their homelands?

The fear of getting caught and sent back home is very stressful. And stress and cancer are clinically linked.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: SP33Demon


Care to explain why immigrants have higher cancer rates here vs their homelands?

The fear of getting caught and sent back home is very stressful. And stress and cancer are clinically linked.

The study wasn't done on illegal immigrants, it was done on Hispanics who moved here. Nice try though.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Care to explain why immigrants have higher cancer rates here vs their homelands?

Text

"It's related to becoming overweight, a lack of exercise, eating rich food and red and processed meats."

World Health Organization studies for decades have said cancer rates are higher in industrialized countries, in part because their populations are usually older.

Damn Americans and their long lives and rich food.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: oznerol

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Care to explain why immigrants have higher cancer rates here vs their homelands?

Text

"It's related to becoming overweight, a lack of exercise, eating rich food and red and processed meats."

World Health Organization studies for decades have said cancer rates are higher in industrialized countries, in part because their populations are usually older.

Damn Americans and their long lives and rich food.

You're close, it's due to eating processed foods with fast food being the main culprit. The people who migrate to the States are poor as the CBS article explained and they rely heavily on this as a food source. Back in their homelands, every street corner isn't invaded with a McD's or BK.

The long life part has nothing to do with it, you are quoting that Americans/industrialized nations have higher cancer incidences due to old age. This study was showing that Hispanic immigrants have higher cancer incidence rates here vs the rates of the country they moved from. Furthermore, most immigrants aren't old. Mexicans, for example:

Three-quarters of Mexican immigrants in 2006 were adults of working age.
Of the Mexican immigrants residing in the United States in 2006, 10.1 percent were minors (under age 18), 78.3 percent were of working age (between ages 18 and 54), and 11.6 percent were seniors (age 55 or older).

Of the foreign-born population in the United States in 2006, 8.1 percent were minors, 60.2 percent were of working age, and 22.1 percent were seniors.

Text

I think it's safe to hypothesize that aside from tobacco, fast food is what is causing increased cancer rates among poor Hispanic immigrants to the US. If the poor Hispanics only ate organic, I'd be willing to bet their cancer rate would be the same or less than their home countries.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: SP33Demon


Care to explain why immigrants have higher cancer rates here vs their homelands?

The fear of getting caught and sent back home is very stressful. And stress and cancer are clinically linked.

Wow, you can do better than that.

 

[HannibalX]

I buy "organic" milk and cream because to me it tastes better. Outside of that I don't purposefully buy "organic" food but sometimes I end up with it anyway because most of my fruits and veggies come from the local farmer's market and most of my meat come from a local butcher.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: oznerol

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Care to explain why immigrants have higher cancer rates here vs their homelands?

Text

"It's related to becoming overweight, a lack of exercise, eating rich food and red and processed meats."

World Health Organization studies for decades have said cancer rates are higher in industrialized countries, in part because their populations are usually older.

Damn Americans and their long lives and rich food.

You're close, it's due to eating processed foods with fast food being the main culprit. The people who migrate to the States are poor as the CBS article explained and they rely heavily on this as a food source. Back in their homelands, every street corner isn't invaded with a McD's or BK.

The long life part has nothing to do with it, you are quoting that Americans/industrialized nations have higher cancer incidences due to old age. This study was showing that Hispanic immigrants have higher cancer incidence rates here vs the rates of the country they moved from. Furthermore, most immigrants aren't old. Mexicans, for example:

Three-quarters of Mexican immigrants in 2006 were adults of working age.
Of the Mexican immigrants residing in the United States in 2006, 10.1 percent were minors (under age 18), 78.3 percent were of working age (between ages 18 and 54), and 11.6 percent were seniors (age 55 or older).

Of the foreign-born population in the United States in 2006, 8.1 percent were minors, 60.2 percent were of working age, and 22.1 percent were seniors.

Text

I think it's safe to hypothesize that aside from tobacco, fast food is what is causing increased cancer rates among poor Hispanic immigrants to the US. If the poor Hispanics only ate organic, I'd be willing to bet their cancer rate would be the same or less than their home countries.

Load of crap.

What is most likely the cause are excesses they could never afford nor have access to in their homelands. Too much smoking, alcohol, eating and less exercise all contribute.

And if you think produce and meats in Mexico is 'organic' or even contains less chemicals than the US you're high.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Crusty
So they compared it only on nutritional value? What about taste or other chemicals found?

That's what I'm wondering. No one I know buys organic food for increased nutritional value, but for better taste and no pesticides.

Exactly. I feel markedly and unmistakably better eating organic foods than typical foods.. I didn't even expect this to happen when I began eating at Whole Foods... but I noticed I always felt clean and healthy after eating foods from WF; never the kind of hangovers I used to get from eating typical foods (as my body presumably tried to process out the junk / synthetic chemicals)... eating organic is worth it for taste and how I feel alone... it's largely for what it DOESN'T contain

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Polish3d

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Crusty
So they compared it only on nutritional value? What about taste or other chemicals found?

That's what I'm wondering. No one I know buys organic food for increased nutritional value, but for better taste and no pesticides.

Exactly. I feel markedly and unmistakably better eating organic foods than typical foods.. I didn't even expect this to happen when I began eating at Whole Foods... but I noticed I always felt clean and healthy after eating foods from WF; never the kind of hangovers I used to get from eating typical foods (as my body presumably tried to process out the junk / synthetic chemicals)... eating organic is worth it for taste and how I feel alone... it's largely for what it DOESN'T contain

Do I need to link to the Penn & Teller thread that put people in blind taste tests and they all failed to pick which was organic? Organic food doesn't taste better, isn't better for you, does contain pesticides, so basically all the reasons why people buy it is out of stupidity but people are free to spend their money on whatever they want.

 

[Polish3d]

It's like me telling you I feel better after working out, and you telling me that I do not. There really isn't going to be any convincing me on this; I feel far better eating this way and I did not expect it to happen.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Polish3d
It's like me telling you I feel better after working out, and you telling me that I do not. There really isn't going to be any convincing me on this; I feel far better eating this way and I did not expect it to happen.

Of course you're going to think that. You have to justify the large amount of money you spend on eating organic. Also comparing eating organic which has no benefit to working out is stupid seeing as there is actually a benefit to working out. It's your brain letting you think it tastes better but you are free to spend your money on what you like.