Organic food

[Count Dooku]

I searched the net for information about the safety of organic food. I could find no scientific studies indicating it's any safer than 'non' organic food. As a chemist, I can't help but like the idea of NOT putting a slew of potentially harmful chemicals into my body (so I have a slight bias toward organic food). But little to no data exists that indicate said chemicals harmful. My fiance, a biologist, points out that the lack of chemicals allows about 1,000 species of micro-organisms to inhabit organic food. Though no data exists indicating the chemicals currently in 'non' organic food are harmful, the harmful nature of bacteria is well known.

The organic food craze has potential to turn out well (ie, eliminating the consumption of potentially harmful chemicals). I'm also concerned that the premise underlying said craze is completely untested. . .

Thoughts? This can turn into a pretty heated debate pretty quickly, so keep it civilized!

[Mr Bean]

As a Chemist you should know, Dosage is everything. One part in one million is not going to do anything to you. It might as well be homeopathic for how little dosage of various chemicals you receive from eating normal food.

[Broomstick]

Not to mention that MANY foods naturally contain chemicals that are harmful to the human body when consumed in large quantities. Peanuts and aflatoxin, potatoes and scolomines (sp?), other things have saponins, caffeine, tannins, etc., etc. Many of these are present to combat insect pests, fight various infectious agents, discourage animals from eating them, and so on.

You have a liver and kidneys to detoxify Bad Stuff that gets into your body. We evolved to deal with a certain amount of Bad Stuff in our diet.

And the point about dosage is important. Pesticides are washed away by rain or even irrigation water. There are modern pesticides that degrade under sunlight and with time so that they can be applied early enough in the season that by harvest these chemicals have largely degraded and been washed away.

Also keep in the mind that, at least in the US, there is really no regulatory definition of "organic", and it can be used as a marketing tool.

"Organic" is no guarantee of safety - shit, for example, is organic fertilizer, but improperly processed and applied it can also spread disease - such as E. coli and the other "diarrhea" bugs that have contaminated our vegetable and fruit supply in recent years. Organic is not inherently safer.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not to mention that MANY foods naturally contain chemicals that are harmful to the human body when consumed in large quantities. Peanuts and aflatoxin, potatoes and scolomines (sp?), other things have saponins, caffeine, tannins, etc., etc. Many of these are present to combat insect pests, fight various infectious agents, discourage animals from eating them, and so on.

You have a liver and kidneys to detoxify Bad Stuff that gets into your body. We evolved to deal with a certain amount of Bad Stuff in our diet.

And the point about dosage is important. Pesticides are washed away by rain or even irrigation water. There are modern pesticides that degrade under sunlight and with time so that they can be applied early enough in the season that by harvest these chemicals have largely degraded and been washed away.

Also keep in the mind that, at least in the US, there is really no regulatory definition of "organic", and it can be used as a marketing tool.

"Organic" is no guarantee of safety - shit, for example, is organic fertilizer, but improperly processed and applied it can also spread disease - such as E. coli and the other "diarrhea" bugs that have contaminated our vegetable and fruit supply in recent years. Organic is not inherently safer.

Echoed and expanded. Using organic methods also requires more land for each kilogram of food produced, and the fertilizers they do use, can actually do nastier things to the soil and surrounding ecosystems, because they are not tailor-made for the soil. Though to be honest I would prefer to minimize those chemicals and just use GE crops, but then we have to deal with demonstrably evil corporations like Monsanto...

[Zixinus]

I personally find that the whole thing is overblown. While there may be problems with the growing of certain foodstuff, we should remember that most of our food is already genetically engineered. We were already eating and making genetically engineered foods before we even knew Cell Theory, nevermind DNA.

Don't believe me? Tomato.

Tomato plants were brought over from America to Europe as decorative plants. The natives didn't eat tomatoes.

Why?

Because they were poisonous.

That property of them has been bred out of them in Europe. That's right, because breeding is considered genetic engineering. The gene-splicing stuff only does it faster.

And pesticides and the lot? Properly wash and clean the fucking crop. Not that difficult. As Broomstick said, most pesticides are cleaned off my mere rain. If you can use gene-splicing to get the same result, all the better.

We ate and breath hundreds of nasty chemicals, whether in modern life or in ancient times. Our bodies can clean it out as they usually do. Not that would mean that we should just casually throw various potent chemicals around but we don't have to pant our willies just because there is some preservatives and stuff in our food.

I searched the net for information about the safety of organic food. I could find no scientific studies indicating it's any safer than 'non' organic food.

Okay, I may not be the authority to talk about this topic, but can we fucking skip the retarded terminology people?

Organic means: "Relating or belonging to the class of chemical compounds having a carbon basis." Or: "Being or relating to or derived from or having properties characteristic of living organisms."

So unless humans suddenly developed the ability to digest and gain energy from rocks and sand, everything we eat is organic.

Could we use words like "gene-spliced" or "breed" or "hand-harvested" or "non-pesticide farming"? It makes a whole lot of sense and makes the discussion a little more clear.

[Twoyboy]

Not to mention that MANY foods naturally contain chemicals that are harmful to the human body when consumed in large quantities. Peanuts and aflatoxin, potatoes and scolomines (sp?), other things have saponins, caffeine, tannins, etc., etc. Many of these are present to combat insect pests, fight various infectious agents, discourage animals from eating them, and so on.

I read in Cosmos magazine (only a popular science magazine I know, but interesting nonetheless) that since many areas that used to use chemical pesticides have gone back to organic farming, the second and third generations of their crops are containing increased levels of these natural toxins. The theory is many pests are gaining resistance to pesticides and also attack the organic crop if all the surrounding crops are protected. Hence, people in these areas are getting more poisoning from the organic crops than they did from conventional ones.

Because they were poisonous.

That property of them has been bred out of them in Europe.

I heard a story (that I've never bothered to confirm) that tomatoes were only thought to be poisonous because in Europe lead cutlery and crockery was used. The tomatoes leached out the lead and for many years people thought the lead poisoning was tomato poisoning. Not sure how much truth there was to it.

Could we use words like "gene-spliced" or "breed" or "hand-harvested" or "non-pesticide farming"? It makes a whole lot of sense and makes the discussion a little more clear.

No. It's a misnomer, yes, but one that now pervades common speech. It's easier to explain by saying "organic food" than any other way because just about everyone knows exactly what you mean when it's said.

[Broomstick]

Zix, I actually do agree with your post 99%, I just feel a bit nit-picky this morning

Don't believe me? Tomato.

Tomato plants were brought over from America to Europe as decorative plants. The natives didn't eat tomatoes.

Why?

Because they were poisonous.

That property of them has been bred out of them in Europe. That's right, because breeding is considered genetic engineering. The gene-splicing stuff only does it faster.

Incorrect.

The Native Americans DID eat tomatoes - the Europeans importing them thought the fruits were poisonous, but they are not and so far as I know never have been. Tomatoes (and potatoes, too) are members of the deadly nightshade family of plants, most of which are quite toxic, hence the descriptor "deadly", so any European recognizing the relationship was probably smart to be cautious. Aside from the tomato itself, the rest of the plant IS poisonous, even today - any part of it other than the fruit contains glycoalkaloids which cause all sorts of problems.

If poisons had to be bred out of tomatoes (and potatoes) the Natives Americans did it though selective breeding, not the Europeans.

A better example of primitive genetic engineering (which is what selective breeding is) is maize - it is believed to be derived from teosinte, a plant of vastly different appearance and much less utility that has been turned into a very versatile crop with many variants. Native Americans even managed to develop temperate climate cultivars from what was originally a tropical grass.

Of course, the Old World folks did quite a bit of this sort of things themselves, including development of most domestic food animals.

So unless humans suddenly developed the ability to digest and gain energy from rocks and sand, everything we eat is organic.

>cough< table salt >cough<

(yes, that was a picky point there)