/ck/ - Food & Cooking

Not really, it's just usually better for the environment long term,

>>5667031

Go read The Ominvore's Dilemma.

>>5667031

If you are an organic farmer, it is much better.

If not, then it isn't any better.

>>5667031
Yes, it is better for a few reasons. Any plant or animal grown in a more natural manner will be healthier. Eating said plants and animals will be healthier for you. The main problem stems from the type of "organic". Because certified organic is a rather ambiguous term. It merely means no in-organic chemicals were used. That's all well and good, but there's a heap of things you can do to change the way the food is being farmed to make it better. All those things happen to be organic, but do not simply replace non-organic chemicals. They change the way you farm. One example is going from big fields of spread out plants to smaller scale square foot gardening. Or from monocrop farming to multicrop famring and companion planting. Both things help reduce the need for any organic chemicals or non-organic chemicals to be used, that includes less water needed.

The largest problem is that your question is rather subjective and relative. What is, "better," and what is, "healthier," even?

The only reason food is grown with industrialized farming is because of government subsidies and capitalism. Why have a workforce of 50 people on your large farm when you can have 2 people and a couple tractors do the work of 50 and get paid for the corn you grow even though no one wants it? Because the government pays you extra for it and the seed companies reap the benefits. In the USA, farmers sell their corn at a loss which is made up by the government.

The more you can grow means the more you get back so why grow organic at all when all you need is poundage on the scales?

I personally think more people need to garden locally and eat, sell, trade what they grow. Decentralized foods sources like that improve the economy, the environment, and stability of communities. And, it can be done organically to the fullest.

>>>/out/358289

>>5667412
>Yes, it is better for a few reasons. Any plant or animal grown in a more natural manner will be healthier. Eating said plants and animals will be healthier for you.

For that statment to be true, then every organically raised plant or animal must be healthier than every non-organically raised plant or animal.

>One example is going from big fields of spread out plants to smaller scale square foot gardening. Or from monocrop farming to multicrop famring and companion planting.

Any farm that does that is going to result in far more expensive produce which will, in turn, limit the potential markes.

>Or from monocrop farming to multicrop famring and companion planting. Both things help reduce the need for any organic chemicals or non-organic chemicals to be used, that includes less water needed.

Huh! So if I plant corn and sorghum next to each other, I'll need less water than if I just plant corn or just sorghum? Nonsense.

>The only reason food is grown with industrialized farming is because of government subsidies and capitalism.

I have news for you. If it weren't for capitalism, you would likely be whining about how hungry you are because there wouldn't be enough food to go around. And you'd be whining about how limited the choices in food there were.

>Why have a workforce of 50 people on your large farm when you can have 2 people and a couple tractors do the work of 50 and get paid for the corn you grow even though no one wants it?

That's even more absurd. I know a lot of farmers and very, very few have a workforce of 50 or more. And I can guarantee that those who do could not possibly get by with 2 people and a tractor.

> In the USA, farmers sell their corn at a loss which is made up by the government.

I don't know where you get your information. It sure isn't based on facts. The subsidies I know of are not triggered by whether or not the farmer is losing money on the crop.

There is Federal crop insurance which is subsidized.

>>5667456
Holy crap, dude. Is that just legit ignorance or are you just a shill? There's really no point in replying to you correctly. Pretty much every point you bring up is instantly shot down with a google search.

>>5667412
Can you link to some conclusive articles that say it's healthier? I've seen a few, but they are usually pretty dodgy and as far as any others go there either aren't enough cases/information to draw a solid conclusion from or they can't find any. And I mean pesticide wise, both sides have pretty harmful types.

I regrow my vegetable scraps and for every type of vegetable I've regrown one rule holds true: organic regrow better than non-organic (most non-organic don't regrow at all, especially root veg), and the veg from my favourite organic farmer at the market regrow the best. Take from that what you want.

>>5667412
Food grown in human waste is considered natural and organic, but the only healthy way to eat it is as pottage.

>>5667031
On small scale -without any pesticides, just dirt water and sunlight- yes it is. It's not always pretty, but it's better for you and the environment.

Large scale organic in many aspects is just as bad as food grown using conventional pesticides and both are comparable to cross species gmo's

>>5667031
no

organic food IS conventionally grown food.

>>5667501
>Food grown in human waste is considered natural and organic,

If it has been aged and composted for 1 full year it is fine and many people do that very thing.

My biggest peeve about non-organic stuff is that I get a skin rash from eating any nearly raw vegetable unless I use a plastic pot scrubber and soap on its skin. Some stuff like carrots I can't eat unless cooked. My throat, ears, and mouth will itch like fucking mad.

However, all my homegrown stuff never gives me any of that and I can eat it with impunity.

>>5667643
>my throat, ears, and mouth will itch like fucking mad
Maybe you shouldn't be using soap on your vegetables

>>5667656
Learn to read.

>>5667412
Most plants we eat can't survive in nature or are too distant from their actual natural relative to the point where the natural one can't be eaten. I.E. bananas, too many seeds in natural ones to the point you couldn't really eat one and have been farmed to the point that natural bananas are almost never found

>>5667663
Just read 'soap on vegetables' for the first time, ever

>>5667471
Are you that same faggot in the GMO thread that was there to "here to not let you convince me?"
Stop posting that silly shill image, you look retarded, peer reviewed doesn't mean shit if it's biased and if the person misses the same error. Literally non of that applies to his post, you fucking faggot

Also, supply counter arguments nigger

It really depends on the creator. Honestly and competently grown organic food is better.

BUT there are people who are either just incompetent or dishonest. you often get people trying to make a quick buck by just gaming the system enough to get one of the labels, just skirting by to meet the minimum requirements.

If you spend the extra money, you should always make sure you know where your food comes from and how it is grown and by whom. All this is much more important for meat and dairy than it is for produce, not accounting for GMOs.

>>5667656
>>5667681
>My biggest peeve about non-organic stuff is that I get a skin rash from eating any nearly raw vegetable UNLESS I use a plastic pot scrubber and soap on its skin.

lrn2read

>>5667687
wow u got totally #rekt lol

>>5667031
Organic as a marketing term absolutely not. Organic as an idea has pros but your personal health is not one of them.

GMO food is far superior except for the following:
Crops are made sterile so farmers can't reuse seeds. Sterile crops with a single source for seeds is probably as dangerous as any or nuclear war. US has 3 months of food supply if something happens. This used to be 2 years.

>>5667719
>as any DISEASE

>>5667719
A lot of large-scale farms don't re-use seeds anyway due to genetic drift during each generation, and breeders offer consistency.

The only real issues I've seen are the possibility of creating a monoculture, and that GMO crops tend to value size/'hardiness' over the heirloom-crop priority of flavor.

organic for the most part is propaganda designed to make people feel better or superior for eating it. Pretty much everything we consume has either been genetically engineered or selectively bred(some say that it is the same thing idc) If you want consistent quality of the magnitude to feed a large population of people you can't expect to do things "organically" I know a lot of you may be very far removed from farming and can still harbor these ideals. Most farms are barely scraping by anymore, if you look at how crops are bought and sold now its pretty obvious. To put it simply, you take out something that is similar to an insurance contract on your land for the year, you plant what they tell you and you get paid up front, your pay doesn't change at all based on the crop yield. Typically, they're taking about 25% less than the average crop value for these contracts, but since they are steady and they won't lose the farm in a bad year they keep taking them.

>>5667699
:^) nice dubs

TLDR thread

>>5667827
"The only real issues I've seen are the possibility of creating a monoculture, and that GMO crops tend to value size/'hardiness' over the heirloom-crop priority of flavor."

qft

>>5667031
people just want to avoid eating something created in a lab and they want to avoid large amounts of pesticides. they want better standards and cleaner soil conditions etc.

they want the farmers to actually care like they used to in grandmas days.

>>5667412
USDA organic doesn't allow the use of genetically modified organisms.

I buy my organic soymilk to avoid the gmo variety which will have more pesticides added because of how it was modified to be able to handle more.

>>5667456
are you trolling or serious and crazy?

>>5667687
if you remember that guy, then it proves that you are the same person who goes into every single thread about organic food to come up with bullcrap like this
>>5667456
and troll/shill everyone.

>>5667719
I rather have my food grown without being modified in a lab and drowned in pesticides, so I eat organic.

simple as that.

>>5667827
>organic for the most part is propaganda designed to make people feel better or superior for eating it.

stopped reading right there. anyone who says that clearly has no idea what organic really is.

if you are an uneducated fool, why run around acting all cool and pretending you know anything?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/organic
>two different things
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

>>5667827
>everything we consume has either been genetically engineered or selectively bred(some say that it is the same thing idc) If you want consistent quality of the magnitude to feed a large population of people you can't expect to do things "organically"

wrong.

"USDA organic" doesn't allow the use of genetically modified organisms or gmo's.

you can also find the non-gmo project certified logo with the butterfly on it on many different products.

>>5667719
>Crops are made sterile so farmers can't reuse seeds.

From what I understand, no GMO crops has been grown commercially with the terminator gene. So that statement is 100% wrong.

>>5667471
THIS.

Unless you know your grower, it's gonna have pesticides regardless of whether it's "organic certified" or not, and the organic pesticides are used in higher volumes because they're less effective than the synthetic types. If you're not gullible and don't foam at the mouth when you hear "synthetic" like Pavlov's dog, just buy normal stuff from the store and/or get it from a local farm that uses no pesticides at all and can prove it to you.

>>5668467
regardless of the suicide gene, I heard that corporations sue the frog out of farmers that try to reuse the seeds. something about the contract.

>>5668472
>"don't trust organic! its all bad even if you think its good!"
>"they use MORE pesticides!!"
>"hehe! just buy normal stuff from the store! teehee!"
>"mwhuwuhwuwhuahuahuauahaa now they will buy gmo food again..."

not even a nice try.

>>5668490

Gotta love the people who respond to an argument with mockery, instead of actually addressing what was said. Did you forget to make it clear you're on a higher moral plane as well?

>>5667795
>A lot of large-scale farms don't re-use seeds anyway due to genetic drift during each generation, and breeders offer consistency.

It depends on the crop. In the case of wheat, I know of no farmer who buys fresh wheat seed each year unless they are having really bad luck and losing their entire crop every year.

In the case of corn, I imagine that it would be hard to find any commercial farmer, large or small, who saves corn to plant again. The corn that is planted is what is known as an F1 Hybrid. That is, it is a first generation hybrid of two parents of different strains. The F1 Hybrids sold are very consistently of high quality. If the farmer was to save the seed and replant it again the next year, the resulting crop would have a lower yield and it would be awfully difficult to turn a profit.

There are some crops where a farmer would normally save the seed but the advantages of buying and planting GMOs generally make the extra expense worth the money.

It has nothing to do with genetic drift.

>>5668483

That is true. Before they will sell you the seed, they require you to sign a contract that agrees not to save seed from the crop to replant later. That has proven to be quite sufficient to minimize the reuse of the seed.

>>5668451

Which part do you take issue with?

>>5667456
>>Why have a workforce of 50 people on your large farm when you can have 2 people and a couple tractors do the work of 50 and get paid for the corn you grow even though no one wants it? That's even more absurd. I know a lot of farmers and very, very few have a workforce of 50 or more. And I can guarantee that those who do could not possibly get by with 2 people and a tractor.

Upon rereading this response, I think I made a mistake here. It took a while to sink in that the person I was responding to apparently thinks that it would be a good idea to have 50 people working on a farm when the work could be done with 2 people and a tractor.

How many times higher would food prices have to be if it took 25 times the labor to produce the food at the grocery store?

How many people would enjoy paying $10 or more for each loaf of bread or can of beans?

>>5668467
Thank you for that. I was mistaken.

Now I have to go figure out how seedless grapes work.

>>5668612
Which didn't take long. Cuttings are taken from trees to plant new ones.

>>5668507
I think its extremely obvious and clear what
>>5668472
said.

and I know its very clear what I was saying as well. so don't think you fool anybody.

>>5668531
most/all of it.

>ctrl-f
>egg
>0 results

I haven't noticed a difference in quality between organic food and normal food EXCEPT for eggs. It's like night and day. You can see how much brighter the yolks are and taste how buttery-richer they are.

>>5668548
Who cares about food prices when you have a job growing food so you can afford to buy food? People on unemployment might like to have real jobs.

>>5668749
I have my own chickens. I can back up this statement. The difference between my chicken's eggs and the store eggs are really night and day. My chickens free range over about 1 acre of land the only food they get is in the winter and that is a lot of stuff I grow during the gardening season. Oh, and I was giving them crushed oyster shells for calcium, but they haven't had that for many months and the egg shells are just fine. In the winter I'll give them more oyster shell though.

>>5668960
>Who cares about food prices when you have a job growing food so you can afford to buy food? People on unemployment might like to have real jobs.

If farmers were to become so inefficient raising food that it took 50 people to do what 2 do now, those 50 people would only be able to afford the most basic foodstuffs.

How much do you really like bean burritos?

>>5669131
See this post people. This is what the Western mentality is all about. Eat as much super cheap food as you can possibly eat. Make sure it is "non-basic" food (ergo, highly processed, industrialized foods).

How fucked up is that mentality?

>>5667031
>So /ck/ is organic food really any better than conventionally grown food?

Not in my expeirence. The label/brand means basically nothing with produce. Pay attention to it's freshness, feel, smell, etc. That will tell you a lot more about the quality of the produce than whether or not it has an organic sticker on it. I pay little attention to the label and buy what looks the best. Sometimes that's organic and sometimes it's not. Freshness and local is more important than organic in my experience.

>>5669131
I'd gladly pay $5-$8 for an organic bean burrito. I have in the past. But, I grow my own beans now so it doesn't matter.

>>5669168
>I'd gladly pay $5-$8 for an organic bean burrito. I have in the past.

Were your $5-$8 organic bean burritos the basic refried beans on a flour tortilla with a little hot sauce added? Or were they the more modern burritos filled with a variety of ingredients?

With 50 people working on a farm that 2 people could handle, I'd think that the basic bean burrito without all the extras could easily exceed $5 to $8 each.

>>5669270
If you are adding a bunch of stuff to your bean burrito then it isn't a bean burrito anymore. Also, you are completely off base with your made up numbers. Learn some food economics. And if you think $10 is too much for a plain bean burrito then you are an idiot.

>>5669270
>>5669131
Who cares when you are a homegrowmen and can make all the bean burritos you ever want with all the toppings all for free. lol

>>5669328
>free
nothing is

ITT Whole Foods Market™ shills

>>5669350
Free as in no money/currency spent, Mr, Contrarian.

>>5669376
You still spend labour.
Why am I a contrarian for correcting you?

>>5668456
>drowned in pesticides

Well maybe you shouldn't be eating organic, they're some of the worst offenders for pesticide use. Just because they use organic pesticides doesn't mean that they aren't using pesticides that aren't just as or more harmful than commercial pesticides.

>>5669386
Are you a moron? Free = no money. That's it.

>>5669390
no, no money spent= no money spent, which probably isn't entirely true

>>5669389
I'm an organic farmer. The only chemical I drown my crops in is water. Problem with aphids on the tomatoes? Spray them with water to wash them off. Problem with white dusty mold on squash leaves? Spray them with water to wash it off. Problem with vine borer moths? Put water in shallow, yellow-bottomed tray and they drown themselves in it for you. Problem with cabbage moths? Gun them down out of the air with the water hose, step on them, and cover your leafy greens with netting so they can't get to them.

>>5669350
>nothing is free

Good goy, keep repeating that phrase.

>>5669328
that lasagna looks ridiculously good

>>5669326

Do you really think that a simple bean burrito would not be significantly more expensive if it took 25 times as many people to grow it?

>>5669535
I could care less if it cost $1 or $100 really. I'm completely out of the food system, so it doesn't matter. Do some farming or something yourself. Free yourself from the industrialized food waste products.

>>5669510
>washing off insects

You just delay the inevitable. Water isn't going to kill them and within a few hours they'll have crawled back up and be munching your plants. But if you were an actual farmer you'd know that.

>>5669579
you don't know farming techniques like a real farmer does. do you go in the field with them and see how they really do it?

did you hear about that farmer who planted neem, garlic, oregano, around their farm to repel pests?

I like the idea of a Chicken Moat, but while it works well for a family garden, it would be pretty useless around a farm.

>>5667643
>unless I use a plastic pot scrubber and soap on its skin

Couldn't you just peel them?

>>5669579
>argues with an actual gardener about what works and what doesn't

So, armchair gardening is a thing? Must be as bad as those armchair fantasy football people on /sp/.

>>5670002

Don't talk shit about my armchair gardening, bitch.

>>5670002
For every activity X, there will always be armchair X-ers.

>>5670037
>For every activity X, there will always be armchair X-ers

So as long as we have armchair designers, there will be armchair armchair designers.

Sounds about right.

>>5670037

What about an armchair armchairer, telling all the armchair x-ers how to armchair?

>>5670182
Fug, I've been found out.

>>5670002
I was not arguing with a gardener, I was arguing with an "organic farmer". Though no, you are incorrect as I am farmer as well with a PhD in agricultural sciences.

>>5670201
monsanto shill detected
lol jk

Fuck people who say the term Monsanto shill relating to seeds and farming. The largest seed producers aren't Monsanto, it's DuPont. That first point leads me to believe most people for "organic" farming are bullshitting and have no idea what they are talking about.

>>5668749

Youre tasty eggs might be organic but that doesnt mean organic eggs are tasty.

I agree that mass produced eggs are fairly flavourless but that is because they get a boring grain diet. If that boring grain diet was organic the eggs would taste just as bad. If the hens had non organic diet that was varied and omnivorous the eggs would be just as good as what you get.

Basically quality it has nothing to do with whether produce is organic or not it is all about how well it is raised.

>>5670281
>implying both aren't bad.

>>5672091
>Basically quality it has nothing to do with whether produce is organic or not it is all about how well it is raised.

>implying how its raised has NOTHING to do with the quality

huehueheuheu

every organic egg I have ever tried was better than the others. you people will really post anything to try and make organic look bad wont you?

you come to every single thread to just say "btw organic sux"

nobody is falling for it.

>>5670201
Pics of your garden please?

>ITT: angry jewsanto shills argue against scientifically proven data and reason

>>5672301
just because some double faking fake jewish person who really isn't jewish is at the top of a huge amount of evil corporations doesn't mean that all jewish people are bad. not all jewish people support zionism nor do they all understand it very well or even know it exists.

if you want to be disapproving of anyone, disapprove of the corporations causing the problems.

it would be nice if we could just eat organic food without these shills bothering us though.

>>5672234

How about a little reading comprehension.

I'm implying quality has EVERYTHING to do with how produce is raised. I didnt say anywhere organic is bad I said it has nothing to do with quality.

You seem to have some massive chip on your shoulder, just calm down a bit and read things through before you go of ranting

>>5669510
"I have a 10fx10f garden. I know what I'm talking about guys"

>>5672367
I'm sorry anon...

I'm on edge because so many shills keep trying to crap all over organic... I feel that I want to defend organic because its the last "good clean safe" food I have left to eat and be happy with, to rebel against monsanto and other corporations that would otherwise make food into crap.

I want everyone to have the freedom to eat clean untainted natural fruits and vegetables.

I don't want the only thing available to be gmo fastfood. I want to be free.

>>5672421
But your precious "organic" food can't be verified. Just like those orange yolk eggs were disproven to be full of animal/insect protein, it's just they ate a specific grass or flower that changes the yolk color. Everyone will gush about how much better it is. You can't guarantee unless you see the producer yourself or grab one from your back yard.

Do you know how horizontal gene transfer works? It happens all the time in nature. We take the same method in a lab setting, that's what this "spooky" GMO business is. I've done it as a biochemist. That's why the chemist in me cringes every time the buzzword organic is used, because to me that means it is made of carbon. Nucleotides look the same on a basic level, whether they be from the water bears or an actual bear.

>>5673074
>being disapproving of irresponsible GMO corporations = anti-science

>thinks that everything is a chemical therefore no chemicals can be bad

faulty reasoning general

Two of the more useful horizontal gene transfers were the addition of a second set of chromosomes to the original diploid wheat to create a tetraploid wheat and then about 9,000 years ago the addition of a third set of chromosomes to wheat from a related grass to create a hexaploid wheat.

I wonder if anyone has tried to extend that further and make an octoploid wheat.

>>5673226
Never once did I talk about "chemicals" in my post. I was talking about the element carbon, which is the basis for all life on Earth. The chemistry of carbon is organic chemistry.

Also, the majority of GMO research and manufacturing is not funded by corporations, despite what anti-GMO crowds say.

http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/industry-funded-gmo-studies/

Here is a very general description and illustration of protein synthesis and RNA/DNA replication. Most people against GMOs don't understand this principle. They fear what they don't understand, as humans always have throughout history.
http://groundedparents.com/2014/05/08/all-i-want-for-mothers-day-is-non-labeled-gmos/
Yes, I know she isn't a scientist, but she uses proper sources and citation.

Monsanto is all evil, nevermind the millions they have fed.
http://cosmosmagazine.com/features/speak-devil/

The alternatives most give are weak, illogical, or plain ignorant.

http://mobile.foodnavigator-usa.com/People/Professor-What-exactly-is-this-mythical-pristine-alternative-to-GMOs-that-presents-no-risks?nocount#.U-Qc345Ok0M

Let's go back to before corn was modified through selective breeding and genetic modification, like pic related.

Also, there is no dramatic increase in celiac disease in response to GMO wheat because.... There is actually no GMO wheat or wheat products available for purchase or used as ingredients.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/wheat/background.aspx#.U-Qd-Y5Ok0M
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/02/wheat-is-not-genetically-modified/

>>5673719
Everything you posted is completely wrong or outdated. Also the image you posted is about domestication not GMO production.

>>5673719
>There is actually no GMO wheat or wheat products available for purchase or used as ingredients.

A couple of weeks ago, I was at a local agricultural business.

Their secretary mentioned that her doctor won't let her eat wheat products. When I asked her if she had celiacs, she said that it was because of all the GMO wheat!

I probably had a really blank look on m face out of sheer surprise and told her that there was no GMO wheat products being sold.

I don't know if she believed me or not.

>>5673719
>Let's go back to before corn was modified through selective breeding and genetic modification, like pic related.

I have never understood how people can confuse selective breeding and GMOs.

You seemed to be more intelligent than most, but then you turn around and group them together.

I think that most of the anti-GMO crowd is against selective breeding. There may be a few out there, but not many. So why try to confuse the two of them in their minds?

>>5667456
>For that statment to be true, then every organically raised plant or animal must be healthier than every non-organically raised plant or animal.
No it doesn't, it just means that the a plant grown organically would be healthier than the same plant grown inorganically.

>Huh! So if I plant corn and sorghum next to each other, I'll need less water than if I just plant corn or just sorghum? Nonsense.
It's not nonsense. Polyculture makes better use of resources, because you can combine a bunch of plants with different space/sunlight/nutrients/etc and produce more from the same area of land than you would if you were to let go to waste the stuff that your one monocropped plant doesn't use.

Now when it comes to the rebuttals of "it's all muh ebil capitalism's fault!" I agree with you, as long as you're not defending corn subsidies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Health_and_safety

Its as easy as 123...

>>5673074
>Do you know how horizontal gene transfer works? It happens all the time in nature.
In bacteria.

>That's why the chemist in me cringes every time the buzzword organic is used, because to me that means it is made of carbon
I'm going to have to side with the anti-grammar Nazis on this one. Get the fuck over it, you know precisely what they mean - it's that the fertilizers, pesticides etc. are organic, not that the crop itself is. Pretending you don't understand, and going "but all le plants are organic xD" just accomplishes nothing. Words change, organic in this context refers to the substances used in the farming process, you're not going to change this even if you spend all day stamping your feet about it so you may as well just accept it.

>>5673226
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Health_and_safety
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Health_and_safety
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Health_and_safety
READ SOMETHING YOU FUCKING IDIOT

>>5673820
>>Do you know how horizontal gene transfer works?
>>It happens all the time in nature.
>>In bacteria.

As well as other species.

The wheat we consume is a product of horizontal gene transfer. The original wheat, Einkorn, was a diploid wheat (i.e. a single set of seven pairs of chromosome) with a total of 14 chromosomes.

At some point in the distant past, horizontal gene transfer introduced a second set of chromosome pairs into wheat's genome to create a tetraploid wheat having a total of 28 chromosomes. I believe this was known as Emmer.

About 9,000 years ago in the early days of the cultivation of wheat, a new strain of wheat arose as a result of horizontal gene transfer. Again, instead of introducing a gene or two, it received a third set of chromosome pairs, this time from a related grass. The result is a hexaploid wheat.

Today, diploid wheat isn't used very much. Until recently it was mainly grown in the mediteranean area and southern France where it is used to bake a local dark bread and as animal feed. I understand that it is sometimes grown in the US now because of faddish consumers.

Today's diploid wheat is largely used for pastas. Most of our wheat is the relatively latecomer hexaploid wheat.

There is a fish, I believe, with something like 10 or 11 or 12 sets of chromosome pairs.

There are a number of genes in the human genome that came from viruses as a result of horizontal gene transfer.

So it's a whole lot more than just bacteria.

>>5673833

I'm never impressed with cites from Wikipedia. There is all kinds of misleading or just flat wrong information on Wikipedia that is jealously guarded by twits who revert anything entered back to the way they want it. If you check out the references the twits provide, it is clear that they don't support the position the twits advance at all.

You might use Wikipedia as a starting point to look for real information, but it is hardly a rigorous, unbiased source of anything.

Don't take this as an argument against your position -- I probably agree with you. But I cannot abide anyone, whether I agree with them or not, trying to use Wikipedia as any indication that something is true.

>>5673804
>Polyculture makes better use of resources, because you can combine a bunch of plants with different space/sunlight/nutrients/etc and produce more from the same area of land than you would if you were to let go to waste the stuff that your one monocropped plant doesn't use.

That's great for a garden. It's not so great for a large scale farm where you have to make a profit from your work.

>>5673923
Right. But now you're just moving goalposts. I never said that this is practical for large scale farming, just that the notion of planting different kinds of plants together isn't some crazy bullshit but really is more efficient.

>>5673918
It basically says that indeed organic fruits and vegetables have more nutrients in general and that chicken has less arsenic levels based on a 2014 meta analysis wich is a plus side for it.

However it states that even if organic food has lower levels of pesticides and shit like that, all regular food in the US is regulated to have non harmfull levels of that shit. It also states that falvour-wise is inconclusive and that using cow shit as fertilizant can add more bacteria into the food with the posibility of contaminated food.

>>5673833
From your own link

"Further, organic farm animals can receive no growth hormones or antibiotics, and they must be raised using techniques that protect native species and other natural resources. Irradiation, human sewage sludge and genetic engineering are not allowed with organic animal production"

Seems like something worth supporting.

Organic milk is fucking delicious.

>>5673719
you could argue that natural foods are full of natural chemicals, and you might be right.
however, it doesn't mean that people should eat soap and drink blinker fluid.
when people say "ewwww! chemicals in my food!" they usually mean additives like yellow 5, high fructose corn syrup, and other nasty junk that they don't want to be eating. water may very well be a chemical, drink too little, you die of dehydration. drink too much, hyperwaterpoisoning electrolytes or something = death like the hold your wii contest.
is walking into the woods and getting bit by a snake, a natural experience?
there are many good and bad natural things, but my point is that people usually mean this:
>I want a banana 100% natural with no chemicals

what they mean:

>banana.
>no bells
>no whistles
>no tricks
>no trucks


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/organic
>two different things
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

>>5673901
so technically, wheat BECAME more genetically modified over time?

because of people? or because of nature in a certain environment happened automatically?

>>5673964
But the problem is that your average banana doesn't get enriched with hy fructose sugars and it will be near to imposible to make junk organic food.

The method of production used in modern times have been built upon many years of scientific research and practice and it is idiotic thinking going back to "mu natural roots" is in some way good. Any good chef would tell you that it doesn't matter if it is fucking organic or not, it is how you raise it and how much care you put into every individual crop or animal that changes the flavour. And let me tell you that 20% of organic food comes from china http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/25/organic-food-from-china-m_n_624532.html and the rest is mostly done by a sub-brand of a large company and not you fucking jolly local farmer.

The food you are eating is well regulated so you don't die or anything like that. Imagine the shitstorm of demands if a company actually had harmfull additives beyond how the consumer regulates his/her diet. And even if at the end there is less pestiside residue and shit like that two points.
That doesn't mean that the non organic is harmfull for having a little more

You will get fat if you eat like a pig organic or not.

>>5673923
>>5673929
what if everyone in the whole world had their own garden LIKE this?

= end world hunger?

>>5673934
non-harmful levels in conventional? I don't trust them. I will always strive to have NO poison in my food. that is the BOTTOM LINE.

>>5673998

its like salted butter, alot of people just want to buy butter, but then they realize some jerk put extra salt in it, so they stop buying that brand, and buy another brand that stuck to the pure values of what real plain simple pure natural butter should be.

that is what people are doing right now. people are ceasing to buy things they don't like, and buying things that they DO like. understand?


this is what is going on with organic food. people want fruits and vegetables grown without all the extra dishonest bullfeces. they don't want big corporations with loads of money that just want more money to be taking their food into a lab and editing its genetic make up. they don't want extra poison on their food.

its incredibly simple to imagine that people just want their food to be grown cleaner without some jerk messing with it. thats all.

>>5673984
>so technically, wheat BECAME more genetically modified over time?

Doesn't make it a GMO. The term GMO applies ONLY if the genome as modified by certain modern techniques of bioengineering.

The genome has changed/been added to by the introduction of genes from other wheat and from a closely related grass.

>>5674012
Well then, it is a matter of faith so it is just another dumb argument because I cannot prove to 100 certainty that the goverment isnt "le jew face :^)" so get back to >>>/pol/ with your tinfoil shit.

If you wan't to discuss falvour wise and personal experience then come along m8. In which I can agree that organic milk tastes better and maybe organic chicken. Never found any difference in fruit and vegtables though.
>>5674021
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Health_and_safety
The vast proportion of chemicals that humans are exposed to occur naturally. Nevertheless, the public tends to view chemicals as only synthetic and to think of synthetic chemicals as toxic despite the fact that every natural chemical is also toxic at some dose. The daily average exposure of Americans to burnt material in the diet is ~2000 mg, and exposure to natural pesticides (the chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves) is ~1500 mg. In comparison, the total daily exposure to all synthetic pesticide residues combined is ~0.09 mg. Thus, we estimate that 99.99% of the pesticides humans ingest are natural. Despite this enormously greater exposure to natural chemicals, 79% (378 out of 479) of the chemicals tested for carcinogenicity in both rats and mice are synthetic (that is, do not occur naturally).
Nah, its tinfoil and post 9/11 government paranoia.

>>5674004
>what if everyone in the whole world had their own garden LIKE this?

The question is pointless. Not everyone has a garden and not everyone will have a garden.

Second of all, are you familiar with Capitalism? One of the most basic elements of Capitalism is specialization. The more people specialize in what they can do well and be paid for it (not everything one might do well is worth being paid for) and buy what they are not so good at producing or not interested in producing from others, the better off we all are.

If you want to go back to raising all of your own food to feed yourself, go ahead and do it, but the world is not going to follow you. It's a looney idea to expect others to follow your example in this and it isn't going to happen.

And don't sneer at Capitalism. With the improvements brought about as a result of Capitalism, today's population lives better than the kings of a few hundred years ago. Without Capitalism, we would mostly all be serfs and vassals being ruled by others.

>>5674012
>not safe: cow pus in milk
>safe: fresh milk
Gee... I wonder why

>>5674041
Sounds like Marxism, from each according to his ability etc.

>>5674047
Marxism isn't that you shitlord

>>5674047
>Sounds like Marxism, from each according to his ability etc.

Go ahead and state Socialism correctly: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Nothing that I have ever said comes even close to that.

>>5674049
>>5674056
Nothing pushes the murican buttons like the mention of Marxism.

>>5674012
>naturalnews.com
Argument=invalid

And this is the same shit in the other GMO thread, why are you here if you're adamant on being on one side, go fuck off, you've contributed nothing other than "I'm not changing at all!"

>>5674032
>>5674041
>>5674044
>>5674070
it bothers me when people like eating organic and someone just has to try and convince them that they should just stop and eat monsanto food, YEA RIGHT! they don't want that!

some people would rather convince someone to eat monsanto poison trash than consider the possibility that organic food might be better for the planet and the people who eat it, and give them the fair benefit of the doubt and leave them alone, but instead they go so far out of their way to try and desperately discredit organic food, like they HATE it or something?

nobody forces them to get organic food, it is all clearly marked.

meanwhile genetically modified food from monsanto is not always clearly marked so in a sense, many people are passively being "forced" in essence to go to the store and buy food (which they need to survive) picking up products a b c d e f g with over half of them being likely to have come from monsanto, with no clear or obvious way for them to tell.

that is why i believe we need organic food right now, because it is so difficult to tell what food did and did not come from monsanto or other genetically modified pesticide overloaded sources.

monsanto dumps millions every year straight into the government to avoid having to be fair and label their products as "this came from us" because they fear the consumer and they know that many people would likely avoid their products because it is simply their freedom of choice. they fear freedom, so they seek to enslave us.

those are my thoughts and opinions.

>>5674211
If you get me clear scientific evidence that organic is far better in any sense and the food we already eat is dangerous and enviromentaly unstable, I will change to it right away.

The most resent study says that organic fruits and vegtables do have a higher concentration of nutrients and that is basically it. The government regulation and scientific reports states the amout of wast product you can have that would not be harmfull for humans. And if you read my post, again, most of what smart people and not idiot hippies that don't vaccinate their children define as a toxin is naturally produced by all produce. And if you have a beef with corporate greed, then you should know that the majority of the organic market is produced by big corps and 20% of all organic food the US imports is from china.

Also, the monsanto problem isn't intrinsically GMOs, is how they patent it in a way the Farmers can only buy Monsanto shit and everything else get you a lawsuit which I also agree is really shitty.

As in the enviroment, you would think that cow shit as a fertilizer is more healthy but it just isn't. Methane and bacteria are far more pressent there even if I understand what nitrogen does to rivers etc etc. ANd I understand that GMOs can propagate to other locations and kill species because of how resisten they are so im a little neutral on GMOs by the fact that 2 billion people need to be fed.

>>5674252
>The most resent study says that organic fruits and vegtables do have a higher concentration of nutrients

/THREAD

>>5674260
The whole organic argument is
>Healthier
>Safer
>Enviromentaly friendly
>Support small farmer
>It has nature and shit so its tastier
If you want real cuality ingredietns you need to let your wallet lose but not on organic, in premium brand shit. You can have certified organic production that is manufactured, how else do you meet with demand? Which is quite high btw.

But again, organic demands will never reach the level of leaness, purity and cuality as something seasonaly and localy produced with state of the arch equipment. One example is the lack of medicine you can give a cow specially anti-biotics which is cruel in a sense. Also, you cannot use top produced fertilizer that can also be ecofriendly for your crops which is used to make them stronguer but also tastier. And nature them with good food and care is all you need for cuality meals that is not organic. Just go to a real fancy restaurant with top ingredients and ask if it is organic for the chef's laugh.

>>5674291
99% of every single organic food I have ever tasted has looked better and tasted better and to the best of my knowledge been safer and contained huge amounts less to no harmful substances when compared to conventional varieties.

you're just upset and have some kind of vendetta against organic because people went elsewhere for business and you didn't get as big of a paycheck.

>>5674291
I don't care how much a chef laughs because I buy my groceries and cook at home. enjoy paying unfair prices for mass produced frozen restaurant food full of preservatives while falling for some thing that some misinformed person told you about "not everything needing to be organic"....

why are people so hardheaded? I won't let you spread lies.

>>5674468
>>5674457
I have no problem showing you the numbers, but if you are just going to state that I am lying and the whole scientific community and gastronomic community is lying well keep living your life of hypocracy and ignoramus if that lets you sleep at night. I defend freedom of ideology so you can storm Wall Streat and compare GMOs to frankenstein and not accept facts at all. But at least you couple of liberal retards can just understand this cold fact:
Organic Food is not sustentable in means of demand and 2 fucking billion people would starve to dead if we made that changed.

Now off to Germany were they think Aluminum gives Parkinsons and Wilsons disease.

And PS, ALL THE FUCKING ORGANIC FOODS ARE MASS PRODUCED BY BIG CORPS SUCH AS MONSANTO YOU RETARDED PIECES OF IGNORANT SHIT.

>>5674457
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zqe4ZV9LDs

>>5674457
Anecdotal, zero evidence, you sound like a tumblrite

>>5674468
Salt is a preservative, do you not eat salt? Smoking is a preservation method, do you not like smoked food? You act like preservation is a bad thing. You're saying your food is better than a restaurants, a five star restaurant? I'd like to see you compete with that. And "not everything needs to be organic" is correct, it's a big country, gotta feed the populous, organic methods would never work and we'd starve after a bug runs rampant.
>I won't let you spread lies
You haven't disproven anything he said and you're white-knighting organic food....
Tumblr pls you sound like a fucking dumbass

P.S. I'm not him

>>5674488
>>5674496
>>5674501

>GMOs are safe!
>GMOs are unsafe!

>no studies of correct length ever conducted so GRAS all around
>the few studies that were correct length found problems and got vilified and defamed for it

Hmm....well you know what? I think I'll pass on eating GMOs and stick to gardening.

http://gmoevidence.com/danish-pigs-gm-soy/
Danish Pig Birth Defects \96 GM Soy
http://gmoevidence.com/iowa-infertility-in-pigs-from-gm-corn/
Iowa \96 Infertility in Pigs from GM Corn
http://www.examiner.com/article/mounting-evidence-that-gmo-crops-can-cause-infertility-and-birth-defects
Mounting evidence that GMO crops can cause infertility and birth defects

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/06/23/2147245/cyanide-producing-gm-grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-deaths
http://www.naturalnews.com/036302_cyanide_gas_Tifton-85_Bermuda_grass.html#
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-deaths/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/cyanide-and-poisoned-cows/
http://now.msn.com/cyanide-in-biotech-grass-blamed-for-mass-cattle-death

>>5674523
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf
Correlation doesn´t mean causation faggot

>>5674560
the turth hurts doesn't it

>>5674590
Did you even read what I send?

>>5674591
did you even read anything in the other post?

>>5674622
Yes, 2 farmers foud that their pigs are infertile and a one sided page dedicated to flame GMOs say it was the soy bean, the other page is a lot of crap putted together without cohesion or Citaciion. And the other is fucking grass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Scientific_publishing
Scientific publishing on the safety and effects of GMOs intended for the public is controversial because of the public attention on issues around GMOs and the possible policy implications of scientific findings.[77] One of the first incidents occurred in 1999, when Nature published a paper on potential toxic effects of Bt maize in butterflies. The paper produced a public uproar and demonstrations against Bt maize; however by 2001 several follow-up studies had concluded that "the most common types of Bt maize pollen are not toxic to monarch larvae in concentrations the insects would encounter in the fields." and had "brought that particular question to a close."[77] After that event, "some scientists were dismayed that a single paper with preliminary data gave so much ammunition to anti-GMO activists and caused an expensive diversion of resources to calm the scare."[77] This has led such scientists to patrol the scientific literature and react strongly, both publicly and privately, to discredit conclusions they view as flawed, in order to prevent flawed conclusions from again causing public outcry and regulatory action.[77]

>>5674631
sure sure just ignore all the things that matter.

>>5668960

>why buy cars requiring 2000 workers when horse ranches would employ 20000?
>why use electric lights from a 500 person factory when candlemaking could employ 50000?
>why buy thread made from a mechanical loom when this puts cottage weavers out of a job?

You are a textbook luddite.

>>5674836

Thomas Jefferson used to have slaves spend their teenage years making nails by hand.

And people used to make money making pins and needles by hand. I think a days work paid enough to buy a slice of bread and a little butter to put on it.

>>5674836
>>5674872
nice try shills, trying to undermine anons independence and self sufficiency.

>>5674836
>meanwhile people are still complaining about unemployment and illegal immigrants are mowing your lawn

Sure is broken window in here.

I only eat organic food that's chemical, pesticide, additive and hormone free.

All I eat is dirt

>>5674891

Self sufficiency is fine for those who want it, but it comes at a financial cost that depends on the earning power of the individual in question and of the extent of self sufficiency he has.

I guess I'm an organic farmer. I raise animals for meat. I'm not certified, but the steer are on pasture that hasn't seen chemicals in 50 plus years and they get OG corn. The pigs get OG whey and OG corn. The chickens are on untreated pasture and get OG feed. THe sheep are on untreated pasture but get conventional feed.

The restaurant who buys 60 of the sheep would love to have them be organic, but she can't afforf to pay more than she already does. Her customers don't care if it's organic, they are already paying an arm and a leg to eat at her restaurant. Theya ren't teh type of client that's looking for OG. Some of them would like that and would happily pay more, but most don't mind. Most probably do try to buy OG themselves, but aren't sticklers like that.

I can't imagine going out and fertilizing my fields or spraying for pests or weeds with poisons. Have you seen the suits and respirators? Forget about it. There are some OG things that are pretty nasty too (I think nicotine might be something that's used), but I don't want to use any of that, either. Spread some shit on thsoe fields, offer grain that is the best I can offer within reason (I can't grow it myself, but I bet I could find corn more locally and could see the actual operation), and try to be transparent and offer teh best product I can.

It's silly to hear you all arguing that conventional is good for you. Why would you argue that? It's one thing if you;re suggesting that maybe it's not bad, but to say that it's fine is crazy.

Big ag grwoing OG is a nice idea, and better for teh planet than conventional. It's better for your body. WHo needs any fucking citations? The shit they can spray on conventional fields and feed to animals is poison. Period. The OG stuff is better, no matter what. Even if there is some stuff in there that still isn;t so great. And all fo that is better for you. Period.

>>5676856
Continuing.
The best way to go, as many of you have said, is grow it yourself or know where it is being grown. Unfortunatley, that can be rather expensive, which is a shame. I wish quality food was cheap enough for everyone to buy it, but it's not. My meat is crazy money, and only wealthy folks can easily buy it. I do, however, have some families that are certainly not loaded who buy it, too. It's important to them to feed their family well, and they save up for the stuff that they deem most importnat.

Phew. What a ramble. Sorry for all the typing errors.

>big picture: Organic is better. No need to look anything up. We all know it. By as local as you can, and as small as you can. And above all, grow it yourself.

>>5676856
>WHo needs any fucking citations?

>>5675372
it might actually be cheaper to grow all my own food, not really easier, but cheaper.

>>5676856

Feeding your steer corn is bad for them. It doesn't matter if it's organic corn.

You know that credibility you thought you had by guessing you're an organic farmer? You just lost it.

>>5678277
conveniently disregards and forgets where anon mentions they use pasture

>>5675372
If you use costly faulty farming methods, yeah. It is cheap as hell to grow all my own food. Nearly all my tools and stuff are second hand freebies or were super cheap at yard sales.

I think its about balance.
if you use huge amounts of chemical ferts it pollutes nearby creeks etc.
if you use massive amounts of animal waste from pig farms you pollute the ground water with nitrates which cause cancer if consumed over a long period of time.
herbicides kill bees organic herbicides don't.

most regular animal farms use antibiotics to keep the animals healthy in the cramped conditions which makes them hotspots for antibiotic resistant bacteria which is bad. growth hormones are also something to think about.

organic food isn't healthier ("healthy" is a stupid term anyway.) but its better for the environment.
that square foot garden concept is great for your own garden but doesn't really work out in big fields.
what does work tho is crop rotation.
GMOs strains seem to have problems with superweeds like amaranth which seems to be immune to round up. I'm not against GMOs but most don't seem to live up to the hype.

>>5679079
amaranth is related to wheat isn't it? I get amaranth flour all the time.

I don't dislike gmo, just the irresponsible use of it. genetic modification could be a very bright future for humanity.

however monsanto and all these other corporations are destroying the planet and my food has too much pesticides on it.

I'm going to eat organic, screw the system.

If you mean it taste better, then no. Carrots still tastes like carrots, it's all a matter of preference when it comes to taste.

Is it better for you? Maybe, there aren't a lot of studies but why risk eating poison?

Is it better for the enviroment and the people growing it? Yes.

>>5679079
>most regular animal farms use antibiotics to keep the animals healthy in the cramped conditions which makes them hotspots for antibiotic resistant bacteria which is bad. growth hormones are also something to think about.

Huh?

Do you mean feedlots?

I've never seen a regular farm that kept animals in such cramped conditions.

In feedlots, the antibiotics aren't because they are cramped but because of the unnatural diet.

On a farm, antibiotics are used when an animal is sick. In a feedlot, they are used all the time.

>GMOs strains seem to have problems with superweeds

Those GMO crops in which the GMO is there to enable them to be sprayed with more herbicides will almost surely end up with weeds that become more resistant to the pesticides. There is no reason that I can imagine why raising other GMO crops would cause one to end up with weeds better at resisting herbicides. Particularly Roundup since that is the only herbicide I am aware of for which GMO crops have been created.

As of yet, Roundup resistant weeds are not much of a problem although there are a limited number of cases involving Roundup ready soybeans where Roundup resistant weeds appear to be emerging.

>>5678269

Yes, it might be cheaper if you don't count the value of your labor.

>>5676856
>I can't imagine going out and fertilizing my fields or spraying for pests or weeds with poisons. Have you seen the suits and respirators?

What are they spraying in your area that they need suits and respirators?

>>5679226
obviously I would have to do some work to take care of my food. are you suggesting I pull a 20$ out of my pocket and pay myself?

>>5679231
found it

>>5679226
You can only reasonably squeeze in some much employment. You can do most self sufficiency stuff in the in between hours.

>>5667412
>Any plant or animal grown in a more natural manner will be healthier.
Except for the many plants that will die off from pests and disease, and the many livestock that will suffer diseases and infections unnecessarily when they could be given medicine.

>>5679239
>GMOs
>pesticides
nice conflation, agrishill.

>>5674523
>issue-website
>issue-website
>"news"
>"news aggregator"
>"news"
>"news"
>"tech news"
>"news"
come back with something resembling scholarship.

>>5679239

I'm sure that there are some pesticides that would necessitate you wear protective gear when spraying indoors. That is hardly the rule, though.

That said, what the hell does GMO have todo with that? Are you saying that there is a problem with weeds in that building and so whatever they are grown is Roundup Ready and they are spraying with Roundup? I, for one, don't believe it one bit.

>>5679181
no its not its a pseudograin.


>>5679239
most pesticides work systemic and after a period of time they are degraded by the plant. the spraying of pesticides is timed so come harvest the pesticide is no longer in the crop.

it really pains me how little some people know about how this stuff works.
arguments like yours make people who try portray scientifically the benefits for the environment of organic farming look stupid.

>>5674021
Unsalted butter is fucking terrible for every application except baking.

Always add too much salt to the shit trying to get it to taste right.

>>5679239
Intelligent organic farmers wear the same type of get-up when they spread gigantic amounts of pig, horse, and cow shit around their plants, because being exposed to that much shit at once isn't healthy.

You guys are still being weiners.

Are you really trying to defend conventionally grown food as just as safe, and just as healthy, and just as good for teh planet?

If OG carrots were the same price as conventional, would you really skip over the OG ones? If you could get carrots for the same price from your neighbor, would you skip those too?

This is so dumb.

It probably comes down to money, really. There can't be antoher reason why people wouldn't buy OG.

>>5679256
you can't possibly be this uneducated? don't you know that they genetically modify the crops to have a higher resistance against the pesticide that they also make so that they can add even more pesticides without killing the plant? guess what you get on your plate? yum yum dumbass.

>>5679277
>
>>5679256
>
>>5679499

>>5679293
if the pesticides are designed to break down so well then why don't all the gmo corporations just tell that to the public?

why are there tests that show that pesticides make it past the farm and onto peoples plates?

OH wait.....

don't accuse people of being ignorant when you yourself don't know anything.

or maybe you do know and thats why you're angry at the truth. why would you ever support this?

>>5679379
oh sure, I'm sure its just that. because they never spray pesticides right?

>no its not its a pseudograin.

amaranth isn't a superweed... its an ancient grain.

>>5679490
There are no scientifically proven health benfits yet.

There are scientifically proven environmental benefits.

For some people this is enough, for others , it is not.

Beggers cant be choosers, and there are a lot of people on ck that love to play devils advocate (troll) and still live with their parents and have no money.

I am rich so i buy all organic. I don't miss the money whether it has actual positive effects on health and environment or not. I do know that organic milk tastes better, and has a long shelf life in my local grocery store.

>>5679239
all this corporation jimmy rustling... so many damage control replies...

>>5679246
its amazing how just the right people seem to show up in every single organic thread to try to give a thousand reasons why they think organic is bad. who in their right mind would try to dis organic so the other shills could jump up and try to promote their gmo poison drenched garbage?

you do know that animals being in good health and the environment being healthy and natural and well taken care of is some of the things in the best interest of people that eat organic, so why do you pretend that everyone who likes organic wants to watch everything get sick? we have been farming for thousands of years and humanity is still around, the plants and animals didn't all just die, they did really good and thats why humanity is still alive today.

when something needs medicine, it needs medicine, YEA no tug boat tooting ship sherlock. don't pretend or assume that the people that care the most are stupid, and don't be stupid enough to pretend that you care and then promote gmo poison. my ancestors smile upon me, can you say the same?

>>5679272
>that link is bad!
>Pfff that website?
>news!? hueheu
>nope I don't like it!

the picture portrays an excellent image of what is going on, and it makes you mad doesn't it.

come back with some logic and common sense before you turn down any and every link and source and information just because its from any website in the entire internet.

>>5679350
>ignoring what its saying to change the conversation into butter

>>5679514
>There are no scientifically proven health benfits yet.

oh yea?
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/WBL02077/Organic-Foods-Have-More-Antioxidants-Minerals.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/11/organic-food-more-antioxidants-study

>>5679565
>.com

>>5679538
When you are talking in scientific conversations, typically the accepted data consists of peer reviewed journals, experiment descriptions and results from academia Web pages, or compilation websites like NCBI.

Journalists are smart too, and when they give snide "Dr. Smith PhD says this" without citing the experiment or journal. Some also sensationalize the story and pick faulty studies that when scrutinized don't match up, like the recent study by Northwestern done against weed with a select group of 17 individuals, who all happened to be under 20. The headlines said WEED CAUSES SCHIZOPHRENIA AND MEMORY LOSS, without stating it is in undeveloped brains or those genetically predispositioned to schizophrenia.

Also, journalists talk about "a recent study" without providing a proper bibliography reference.

If you were writing an informative essay, none of those sources would be considered acceptable references unless they in turn linked to journals or experiment results. This is why Wikipedia is an accepted source now verses a decade ago, because of the References section which is a footnote in every article, unless they have a warning header. It's also getting more difficult to make prank edits without it going through an approval process (note I'm talking about the main site, not fandom wikis)

>>5679565
So what if they have more antioxidants? Extensive scientific studies prove they have no effect on longevity or overall health, at least nothing conclusive.
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/antioxidants/introduction.htm#science
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/antioxidants/#the%20bottom%20line%20on%20antioxidants
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140710094434.htm

>>5667054
You realize the author of that book is nothing more than a journalist right? None of the books has any scientific basis, and most of it is antidotal.

>>5680496
I agree with you totally, but
>anidotal

>>5679246
If you use normal methods of farming then yes. But, if you use proper methods of farming to compensate for the lack of all those preventive medicines and pesticides things are a lot better.