Forum menu
Well it's not really, it's just not as good for you as non-organic food, but hey, no harm in a bit of sensationalism!
I've known this for ages, which is why I don't waste money on overpriced 'organic' rubbish. Because I'm healthier than a [s]gullible fool[/s] organic food eater, I am allowed to smoke cigs. Winner! 😀
Oh and Mylene Klass is about to pop too, by the looks of things.
[img] 
[/img]
Non-organic tasty courgetty bite, anyone? Mmm healthy.
a) It's a single, small study.
b) Many people buy organic food for environmental reasons, not personal health
Blimey, she's at bursting point.
That reminds me, must set the Sky+ for OK TV.
The organic veg that comes out of my allotment tastes better than non-organic supermarket stuff.
that article is comical properly comical 😆 I know daily mail readers arent the brightest but really its so very funny 😆
Is that scientifically proven, or simply your opinion? You're bound to say that really, aren't you?
Many people buy organic food for environmental reasons, not personal health
If any of them drive cars, or indeed use any motorised transport, then they're massive hypocrites.
Organic = load of marketing guff. Never ever bin proven that organic food offers any health benefits over other foods, whatsoever. Eat what you like, but don't pretend it's better for your health, or the whales, or the planet or whatever.
If any of them drive cars, or indeed use any motorised transport, then they're massive hypocrites.
And that would be because you've decided that only by becoming a Jainist monk can you be allowed to be interested in environmentalism?
So the three sorts of people in the world are Jainist monks, Jeremy Clarkeson and massive hypocrites?
If any of them drive cars, or indeed use any motorised transport, then they're massive hypocrites.
I would refute that if I could be bothered using mostly ideas about the ecological impact on species and habitats of the two types of agriculture.
Most organic food tastes better I would think because of the varieties of fruit or veg used, rather than them being organic per se
[img] 
[/img]
Most organic food tastes better I would think because of the varieties of fruit or veg used, rather than them being organic per se
In my opinion, not so.
Most organic food that I eat tastes better because I grew it. Taste is after all, subjective.
But it might also be because most of the organic food that I eat gets picked only a few hours (or minutes) before I eat it.
You're just bored, aren't you Elfin?
Find something useful to do, rather than read the Mail's webshite and troll on here.
If any of them drive cars, or indeed use any motorised transport, then they're massive hypocrites.
C02 isn't the only thing that damages our world. On a more local scale fertilizer run off from fields clogs water courses with algae and duckweed and pesticides help to create huge mono-cultures where birds and insects find it impossible to live.
The production of cheap food on an industrial scale for the supermarkets rarely sits well with wildlife.
rightplacerightime, I very much doubt that on your allotment you use the same varieties the supermarkey suppliers use. It can much a huge difference.
[b][i]"During trials at an allotment in the Cotswolds"[/i][/b]
😀 "Trials" at [u]an allotment[/u] lol !
[b][i]"While a panel of expert tasters...."[/i][/b]
[i]"Expert"[/i] tasters ? ........ well I reckon its conclusive then - you can't really argue with that. Which Magazine tasters are obviously the final arbitrators of taste.
So no one need worry any further about pumping pesticides and weedkillers into their bodies or the environment.........nor the long term consequences of doing so.
You're just bored, aren't you Elfin?
No I've actually built a small cabinet today. 🙂
C02 isn't the only thing that damages our world.
No it's not. Most of the processes to extract the raw materials used in car manufacture are extremely environmentally unfriendly too. Not to mention oil extraction, refinement and transportation...
[img] 
[/img]
On a more local scale fertilizer run off from fields clogs water courses with algae and duckweed and pesticides help to create huge mono-cultures where birds and insects find it impossible to live.
[img] 
[/img]
Any environmental 'advantages' of organic food production are negated by it's transportation. And as for any of it being 'organic'; the rain what falls from the sky is laden with pollutants and chemicals. So none of it's truly 'organic'.
Organic food production is little more than lip-service to the notion of environmentalism. and a massive earner for organic food producers.
Makes me laugh; go to a supermarket, and look at all the 'organic' produce..... packaged in PLASTIC.
[b]PLASTIC.[/b]
Do you know how plastic is made?
You know that at every turn, I will be there with an answer. 😉
Keep believing....
Do you know much about the direct ecological impacts of conventional farming compared to organic farming Elfin? Arguing that something is bad because something else is worse is the logic of an idiot I'm afraid.
Is organic worth the money that people spend on it compared to other measures to mitigate the ecological impact of farming is questionable. Do people buy organic for the benefits that they hope for. Doubt it?
Is it better for wildlife, certainly
DD; if you come north along Giltspur St, from Cock Lane, you'll find Beppe's cafe on the corner of Hosier Lane and West Smithfield. Fantastic little place, does excellent food. None of yer organic muck mind, proper grub full of flavour and vitamins. Popular with all sorts, from builders, cabbies and street sweepers, to doctors and legal types up from the Old Bailey. It's a proper, classic London cafe. Vinyl seating and everything. A tenner will see you right, no probs.
[img] 
[/img]
Do you know much about the direct ecological impacts of conventional farming compared to organic farming Elfin?
Yes because I'm Professor of Environmental Studies at the Uniservity of London. 🙂
I'd really like to see the environmental 'profit' of organic food production. I bet it's virtually non-existant.
Wake up and smell the Fair Trade Coffee. The only real benefit of such snake oil is to the farmers and retailers...
rightplacerighttime - MemberMost organic food tastes better I would think because of the varieties of fruit or veg used, rather than them being organic per se
In my opinion, not so.
Most organic food that I eat tastes better [b]because I grew it[/b]. Taste is after all, subjective.
But it might also be because most of the organic food that I eat [b]gets picked only a few hours (or minutes) before I eat it[/b].
The two highlighted points have absolutely nothing to do with your food being organic, as I'm sure you'd agree.
I have absolutely nothing against organic food, and would indeed love it if all food were organic, but please don't try using the ridiculous argument that 'organic food tastes better' on intelligent, educated people.
The reality is as anargallis said it's all down to the varieties grown.
Really so you do understand the differences between ecological benefit and environmental benefits?
Yes I do and the benefits in both cases are virtually non-existant, in the long run.
Farming of any type, if it's for commercial gain, is 'harmful'. Just because you don't wash the veg before you package it, doesn't mean you're saving the bloody planet...
Bit of honest reality folks. Come on. You're not all brainwashed drones, surely?
And as for any of it being 'organic'; the rain what falls from the sky is laden with pollutants and chemicals. So none of it's truly 'organic'.
You obviously [i]haven't a clue[/i] what "organic food" means. It refers to food which is farmed without the positive addition of artificial fertilisers, or pesticides, or weedkillers, or antibiotics, or growth hormones, or bioengineering.
So unless there are any of those things in the rain what falls from the sky, then it will still be organic food.
💡 Since you didn't know what "organic food" actually meant, do you think you're entitled to have an opinion on the subject ?
Farming of any type, if it's for commercial gain, is 'harmful'
Not true really given the timelines for massive declines in UK biodiversity in the post war era..your talking rubbish I'm afraid.
True properly targetted measures to benefit biodiversity may well be better than a blanked "organic" label for a farm but the benefits to wildlife certainly in Europe and the UK are beyond dispute.
as an example (no longer able to search for more up to date stuff)
[i]If any of them drive cars, or indeed use any motorised transport, then they're massive hypocrites.[/i]
So because I drive a car I am not allowed to do anything like recycle stuff or buy local food, or walk to the shops when I can, because that'll make me a hypocrite?
No...if I criticise people for buying organic but then buy non-organic, that is being a hypocrite. But I can drive a car and still reduce my impact in other ways.
It's sensationalist thread titles like this that make me think...
'Why do I bother coming on here anymore?'
Sod it, this might just be my last post!
So because I drive a car I am not allowed to do anything like recycle stuff or buy local food, or walk to the shops when I can, because that'll make me a hypocrite?
I think what the Elfinman meant was that because he can't drive a car, it gives him the right to be pious.
Of course he leaves out the fact that ponces lifts off people, or takes the bus instead of walking. But he nevertheless feels that it gives him a right to call other people hypocrites.
Don't let the door hit yer arse on the way out...
'Salright... it was only my last post whilst I was eating my tea, spag bog (with organic stuff in it) was getting cold weren't it.
Ah... Gotta love the Daily Mail and their readers. Bless their little souls shouting as loud as they can and coming up with all kinds of "proof" of hypocrisy from others. After all, we should all live like ignorant selfish [s]w[/s]bankers. Anyone trying to do something different or heaven behold "good" for others or the environment needs to be corrected! Shout little man, shout!! But please, do not think for yourself - just read the Daily Mail for your opinions.
Research is done using one small sample using 3 veggies (broccoli, potato and tomato). However, the tone of the article is that organic produce is not as good for your health. I did not see it mentioned in the article the extent to which the pesticides could be on the skin of the potatoes and potentially harmful (I have to admit I do know if this is problem with these vegetables, but it would be nice if the article would mention it). Even so the results are not necessarily surprising given our current laws on pesticides that should ensure the really harmful stuff is not used. This may be more difficult with produce from abroad however, which is where increasing amounts of our food are coming from (nice dilemma for the Daily Mail and its readership: it comes from [i]abroad[/i]: aarrgghhh... evil, evil! - However, it also is [i]cheaper[/i]: Oh wait, then it's not too bad!
Another [url= http://bit.ly/hD3zLi ]article[/url] opposing the Mail's view.
The intensification and expansion of modern agriculture is amongst the greatest current threats to worldwide biodiversity. Over the last quarter of the 20th century, dramatic declines in both range and abundance of many species associated with farmland have been reported in Europe, leading to growing concern over the sustainability of current intensive farming practices. Purportedly ‘sustainable’ farming systems such as organic farming are now seen by many as a [b]potential solution[/b] to this continued loss of biodiversity and receive substantial support in the form of subsidy payments through EU and national government legislation.
Only a 'potential' solution? Not a [i]proven[/i] one, then?
So, how much of at least European farming, let alone globally, is organic, compared to 'non-organic'?
I'm not disputing that organic farming, if it were universal, would potentially be better for t'environment and baby animals and that. But will such a thing ever happen? Money talks, and as long as non-organic methods yield better harvests and profits, then the situation won't change much.
Can't access that article, as it seems to want money from me to see it (surprise surprise....), so can't see if it's got owt proving the tiny amount of 'organic' farming in Europe is actually having an [b]overall significant impact[/b] on the environment and ecology. 😐
Organic food production, as it exists as such now, is more or less just a marketing exercise to get folk to buy lumpy mishapen veg, at an extortionate price.
Meanwhile, the organic farmers are richer, and can afford more and bigger cars....
Loving btw how the topic starter accuses people that eat organic food for environmental reasons of hypocrisy yet at the same time says (s)he is allowed to smoke because (s)he believes non-organic food is healthier than organic food. No hypocrisy there then.
Regarding plastic: Many vegetables are packaged in plastic because this ensures they keep better during transport - less waste = better for the environment. Also plastic can be burned for heating very effectively nowadays regaining a lot of the energy it cost to make (I don't have the figures with me but believe it was well over 80 %).
Now get ready for some shock horror! Did you know that in some cases organic food is less environmentally friendly than non-organics! This depends on both yield and potentially transferable diseases that come from not using chemicals. Should we stop eating organics?
In my opinion we should not as buying organics it gives a signal to the market that people care about the quality of food and the way it is produced. This may be abused by some, but I had rather that I myself [i]choose[/i] to be ripped off than that pesticides etc. may come into the environment.
Mostly however, I would love it if reporting on this would be kept dry and to the facts rather than writing sensationalist reports on the basis of a very small "trial" sample. Health and environmental issues with regards to food is not easy science and answers will never be clear. Nuance is required on these issues both with those in favour as those opposing it. The only exception to this is the slagging off of Daily Mail reporting and overtly vocal Daily Mail readers - that cannot be done enough :-).
so your a professor of environmental studies and you cannot read an abstract from a science journal properly?from the next paragraph
This paper assesses the impacts on biodiversity of organic farming, relative to conventional agriculture, through a review of comparative studies of the two systems, in order to determine whether it can deliver on the biodiversity benefits its proponents claim. It identifies a wide range of taxa, including birds and mammals, invertebrates and arable flora, that benefit from organic management through increases in abundance and/or species richness. It also highlights three broad management practices (prohibition/reduced use of chemical pesticides and inorganic fertilisers; sympathetic management of non-cropped habitats; and preservation of mixed farming) that are largely intrinsic (but not exclusive) to organic farming, and that are particularly beneficial for farmland wildlife.
Can't access that article, as it seems to want money from me to see it (surprise surprise....),
So a professor of environmental studies doesnt have access to e journals or are you just full of shite?
Did you know that in some cases organic food is less environmentally friendly than non-organics! This depends on both yield and potentially transferable diseases that come from not using chemicals.
Sorry, I've had a long, stressful day. Why would yield and disease have anything to with being 'environmentally friendly'?
rather than writing sensationalist reports on the basis of a very small "trial" sample.
That's what the press does. It's not going to stop or become any better so you'd better get used to it.
Just because I need to get to work and love procrastination:
Organic food production, as it exists as such now, is more or less just a marketing exercise to get folk to buy lumpy mishapen veg, at an extortionate price.
What a great quote. Now, do you have [i]any[/i] research to back that up? Oh wait, of course not! But that does not stop you from writing it, now does it? Much organic veg is more expensive due to smaller scale production and more [i]honest[/i] prices for food. I do not think relatively more organic farmers earn disproportionally more than non-organic farmers. I do agree however that many middlemen and supermarkets excessively raise prices with organic food. I think it's them buying the bigger cars rather than the farmers.
Can't access that article, as it seems to want money from me to see it (surprise surprise....), so can't see if it's got owt proving the tiny amount of 'organic' farming in Europe is actually having an overall significant impact on the environment and ecology.
[url= http://tinyurl.com/666sfqd ]Google is your friend![/url]
The article is not about that. Need to get to work now so cannot look it up for you. It should be quite easy to find research on this though.
BTW: I think we agree in finding organically produced food that is flown in from abroad (e.g. beans from Kenya) [i]is[/i] not quite right for environmental reasons.
Hi Jon, quick answer to your question.
Sorry, I've had a long, stressful day. Why would yield and disease have anything to with being 'environmentally friendly'?
Higher yields and less disease mean less food needs to be produced to fulfill food needs.
That's what the press does. It's not going to stop or become any better so you'd better get used to it.
I know, but I cannot stop caring and feel that increasing passivity with regards to such issues makes things. My mistake!
The only issue I have with organic food is the widespread assumption that organic means "grown without pesticides"
A tenner will see you right
Sounds about right.
This thread is very very poor.
pascoa341 - MemberSorry, I've had a long, stressful day. Why would yield and disease have anything to with being 'environmentally friendly'?
Higher yields and less disease mean less food needs to be produced to fulfill food needs.
Ta, that's what I assumed you meant.
Surely disease is all part of the tapestry, so more disease = more biodiversity? Balancing out the larger crop area needed. Everyone's a winner in the end!
(Where's the 'devil's advocate' smiley gone?)
deadlydarcy - MemberA tenner will see you right
Sounds about right.
This thread is very very poor.
Sorry dd, can I just correct that
This TROLLING is very very poor
It must be a quiet night in London Town.
I tend to ignore elfinsafety as one of this forums more tedious trolls, but when the op is quoting from the Daily Heil...
I expect the full headline should read "Organic single mother asylum seekers find organic food raises house prices near Princess Diana's grave due to Labours past record in bank bonus scam".
Probably.
Loving btw how the topic starter accuses people that eat organic food for environmental reasons of hypocrisy
No; if you actually red what I rited propply, you would then see that I actually sed:
If any of them drive cars, or indeed use any motorised transport, then they're massive hypocrites.
Which, let's face it, is true. As proven by the level of outrage on this very thread. people like to act all righteous and 'environmentally conscious' when it suits them, but often can't see that they, through other actions, are adding to environmental damage. And when the truth is pointed out to them, they get all arsey.
Here's another important bit of what I wrote:
I'm not disputing that organic farming, if it were universal, would potentially be better for t'environment and baby animals and that. But will such a thing ever happen? Money talks, and as long as non-organic methods yield better harvests and profits, then the situation won't change much.
i've yet to see someone tackle this one...
Truth is, it's pretty idealistic to imagine much rapid change to global farming and food production methods. Can't see the likes of the USA and China making such radical changes any time soon.
Which leaves us with the fact that 'organic' stuff is little more than a nice, idealistic utopian notion. which we in as affluent a country as Britain have the luxury to indulge in. The reality is that global food production methods are damaging, as are mineral extraction, material refinement, manufacturing etc.
So, we, as individuals in such an affluent nation, are responsible for tremendous damage to the environment, through our relatively luxurious lifestyles. It's the truth, Ruth. And those clever marketing people like to feed on our [b]guilt[/b], and sell us expensive 'ethical' products. So people consume, and are deluded into thinking they are making a difference. The only way you can make any difference, is to die. And stop consuming. Because if you live in Britain, you are contributing far more to global environmental damage than some poor sod working all the hours of the day for f-all pay in some far-flung land, so that you can have yer nice shiny cars, bikes, 52" tellies, selvedge denim jeans and titanium watches.
Mull that over, as you feast on yer Fair Trade Organic Mung Beans....
What a great quote. Now, do you have any research to back that up?
Yes. And for £31.95, I can show it to you.
As for the Daily Mail thing; I actually heard about this on a BBC radio programme, and the DM article was the first I found on the subject. It's actually a study done by Which? magazine.
Now, what massive diesel engined behemoth should I buy to transport me and my bike to trail centres?
So are you going to repond to what I showed you, you know proof in a peer reviewed journal that organic farming is better for wildlife?
I'm not disputing that organic farming, if it were universal, would potentially be better for t'environment and baby animals and that. But will such a thing ever happen? Money talks, and as long as non-organic methods yield better harvests and profits, then the situation won't change much.
you have thedebating style of a three yearold but I'll try..... your first point I'm sure you disputed yourself earlier in the thread and as far as money talking I'm sure you said something about organic farmers buying better cars? So on reflection I cant really respond any further. When you have a clear point to put across I may try again.
Professor of Environmental studies
So more 'environment for dummies', rather than [i]science[/i] then?
And just like a_a, I happen to know a bit about this topic, unlike elfisamuppet, who read a newspaper article.
The concept of organic agriculture is fine, but...
1) If it was adopted globally, there'd be a massive food shortage
2) Fertilisers are still used. Admittedly they're organic in nature such as manures and composts, but you'd be naive to think that none of these nutrients leach out. They simply leach out as dissolved organic compounds instead, and as such, aren't usually measutred in water monitoring schemses, which mainly focus on NO3, NH4, and PO4. Whilsy NH4 and PO4 can actually bind quite strongly to the soil organic matter and not be leached out, a lot of DON compounds actually leach quite easily.
3) Pesticides are still used. Only this time, ironically instead of organic compounds being used which mostly degrade quickly in the environment, older inorganic heavy metal containing pesticides are used. If used for long enough, your entire field becomes a contaminated site.
as long as non-organic methods yield better harvests
Yup, that's the point. The world doesn't have enough food as it is. You want to stop pollution, how about you stop eating...
And for £31.95, I can show it to you.
As I couldn't be bothered to read all your guff, I didn't catch which article you wanted. Have you got the doi for it? If so, PM me your address and I'll email it to you.
please don't try using the ridiculous argument that 'organic food tastes better' on intelligent, educated people.
I'm not sure that being intelligent and educated (even if you were) would be sufficient reason for me to believe what you say rather than trusting my own senses.
@Elf
You know that at every turn, I will be there with an answer.
You didn't answer my question re' three types of people.
@anagallis
rightplacerightime, I very much doubt that on your allotment you use the same varieties the supermarkey suppliers use. It can much a huge difference.
Or not. Like I said, taste is subjective and I expect there will be people (in fact I know there are) who will prefer supermarket varieties (you've only got to think about examples like Golden Delicious apples which were the favourite apple variety for years) because that is what they are used to. Also, there's nothing to stop supermarkets selecting for flavour, which they do a lot more nowadays. However, the tomatoes that come out of my greenhouse will taste better not because they are better varieties, but because they have been picked at optimum ripeness.